Jeanette Mauti may have attempted to conceal, tamper evidence against her husband, James Mauti
Defendant Dr. James Mauti, left, and his wife, Jeannette Mauti arrive for his pretrial hearing in Elizabeth, in this 2009 file photo. Jeannette Mauti, a judge ruled today, does not have to testify against her husband during his sexual assault trial.SPRINGFILED — The wife of a Springfield sports doctor cannot be compelled to testify against him in his sexual assault trial, an appellate panel ruled today when it overturned a Union County judge’s decision.
Jeanette Mauti may have attempted to conceal or tamper with evidence against her husband James Mauti when the pair were not married, but the circumstances of the case do not exempt her from protection of the spousal testimonial privilege, Judge Jose Fuentes wrote for the panel.
The spousal testimonial privilege — which protects a spouse from testifying against his or her partner in most criminal cases — is a reflection of the importance society places on marriage, the court wrote. Conflicts arise when attempts to pierce that privilege are made in the interest of the public good, the court said.
"These moral conundrums test our resolve to stay true to the overarching principles embodied in all privileges: that is, our willingness, as a matter of public policy, to sacrifice the pursuit of the truth in a given case to uphold the greater public good that comes from protecting a particularly valuable relationship, in this case the relationship between spouses," the court wrote.
But the court said prosecutors can still get similar testimony to a jury without forcing Jeannette Mauti to be a witness. The panel said authorities can call as witnesses her father and brother, who have information about evidence she took from her husband’s office.
First Assistant Union County Prosecutor Albert Cernadas Jr. said his office is "disappointed" with the decision and will seek an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
"We believe the state presented sufficient evidence to pierce the spousal privilege. (Today’s) decision effectively denies crime victims their right to a fair trial," he said.
The appellate court noted 19 states abandoned the spousal testimonial privilege by 2006, but New Jersey and 28 others, as well as the District of Columbia, still recognize it.
James Mauti, a physician with a sports medicine practice in Springfield, is accused of sexually assaulting an employee he was treating as a patient on Nov. 25, 2006. Jeanette Mauti, who was not married to James at the time but lived with him, worked as his office manager.
Two days later, the alleged victim told Jeannette Mauti he sexually assaulted her. Jeannette eventually moved out, but took with her Mauti’s Palm Pilot, a pair of his shorts the alleged victim said she wore and a towel containing Mauti’s semen.
Jeannette Mauti later told a grand jury she did not know why she took the shorts and towel, but said she took the Palm Pilot to determine whether it contained any photographs of the alleged incident.
James Mauti is charged with aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact and criminal sexual contact. He could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
Jeannette and James Mauti reconciled and eventually married on Oct. 28, 2007, after the Union County Prosecutor’s Office unsuccessfully sought a court order blocking the marriage until after the trial. The day after their wedding, Jeannette Mauti’s attorney faxed a letter to the prosecutor’s office saying she would not testify against her husband.
Superior Court Judge Stuart Peim in Elizabeth ruled in January that she could be compelled to testify. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.