The marital testimony privilege -- the adverse spousal testimony privilege -- begins with marriage, and the privilege terminates when the marriage terminates.

Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, pin? (1979).The law is disordered on the question of when a presumption in a criminal trial violates the constitutionally-mandated standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cf. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, pin? (1967).Although sparse United States Supreme Court dicta and precedent suggest that nonconstitutional privilege rules may have to yield to a criminal defendant's federal constitutional rights, except for the specific and rare circumstances in which the Court has said or suggested that must happen, it is unknown when such privilege rules must yield to a criminal defendant's constitutional rights such as the right to compulsory process and the broader federal constitutional right to present a defense in a criminal trial.

City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 557-558 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding, in plaintiff Alabama municipal entities' action against defendant chemical companies for fraud and violation of antitrust law, that the trial court....A statement by an agent or an employee who is not authorized to speak on behalf of the agent's principal or the employee's employer may nonetheless be treated as the statement of the principal or the employer and thus as a vicarious admission that is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay; but such a statement can be imputed to the principal or the employer only if the statement, if by an agent, is about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or, if by an employee, the statement is about a matter within the scope of the employee's employment.