Defense: Wife should not testify in slashing trial

The man charged with attempted murder in the January slashing attack and robbery on taxi driver Eric Drake has the authority to keep his wife from testifying against him, his attorney argued in court documents filed Thursday.

• Photos

Aaron St. Clair Jr.'s wife has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the crime and is on the prosecution's witness list. Assistant District Attorney Doug Gardner later filed arguments asking the judge to allow Violet St. Clair to testify, regardless of her husband's wishes.

State rules restrict the use of marital communications in court testimony, but attorneys involved in the St. Clair case strongly disagree as to how the rule applies to the upcoming trial.

Whether Violet St. Clair will be allowed to testify will be up to Juneau Superior Court Judge Larry Weeks. Aaron St. Clair's trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 26.

Aaron St. Clair, 21, represented by Assistant Public Defender David Seid, was charged with attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, first-degree robbery and tampering with physical evidence.

He is accused of slashing Drake from the back seat of Drake's cab during a robbery on the night of Jan. 7. St. Clair spent about eight hours in surgery, most of the time devoted to repairing his hands.

Violet, 18, accused of calling for the cab and sitting next to Drake during the attack, was charged with first-degree assault and first-degree robbery. She agreed to plead guilty Oct. 1 to conspiracy to commit robbery. She could be sentenced Dec. 23 to up to eight years in prison.

At her change-of-plea hearing, her attorney, Steven Wells from the Office of Public Advocacy, said via telephone that the agreement did not involve testimony in her husband's trial.

"Mrs. St. Clair has been subpoenaed and should be required to testify," Gardner wrote. If a marital privilege applies, it would be Violet St. Clair's to decide, he argued.

A message left for Wells seeking comment on whether his client would testify was not returned Thursday.

Gardner also argued that if Aaron St. Clair has any privilege over his marital communications, he gave them up when he discussed those communications with a friend who went on to testify to the grand jury. According to a federal ruling, it doesn't apply in cases where both parties allegedly conspired in a crime, he added.

Gardner wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1980 case, defined marital privilege rules as "necessary to foster family peace."

The St. Clair's marriage is over, he wrote.

Seid said he does not yet know what Violet St. Clair would say in testimony for the prosecution, but he disagreed about the state of the marriage.

"The St. Clair marriage is not conclusively destroyed, nor does any exception to the spousal immunity privilege apply," he wrote. He charged that the prosecution "cut a deal" with one spouse in hopes of using her testimony against the other.

He argued that state evidence rules provide his client with spousal immunity privilege and protection of confidential marital communications.

"These privileges do apply and are invoked by Mr. St. Clair."