People v. Gliniewicz, 119 N.E.3d 28

Melodie Gliniewicz was indicted on multiple counts alleging misuse of charitable funds and money laundering; some alleged involvement by her deceased husband, Charles (Joe) Gliniewicz.
The State intended to introduce e-mails and text messages exchanged between Melodie and Joe recovered from Joe’s phone; defense moved in limine to bar any such communications as protected by the marital-communication privilege.
The trial court granted defendant’s motion in limine, precluding the State from presenting confidential communications between Melodie and Joe (including e-mails and texts) without prior court permission.
After appeal, the State produced a DOJ/FBI consent-to-search form signed by Melodie (Oct. 8, 2015) and investigative reports indicating she surrendered her phone and told police they would find the same material on her phone as on Joe’s.
The State moved to reopen proofs in the trial court to litigate waiver/consent; the trial court denied reopening, finding the State’s excuse for not earlier producing the consent form unconvincing and that the issue was not ripe because the phone had not been analyzed.
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the in limine ruling but reversed the denial of the State’s motion to reopen proofs and remanded for further proceedings on waiver/consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the marital-communication privilege bars admission of emails/texts between Melodie and Joe recovered from Joe’s phone	Privileged communications are not protected if an exception applies (third-party interception) or if defendant waived privilege by consenting to search/surrendering phone	Communications are confidential and protected; no voluntary or intentional revelation by defendant (privilege not waived); third-party exception inapplicable	Grant of defendant’s motion in limine was correct: third-party and joint-criminal-enterprise exceptions do not apply; privilege stands absent exception or waiver
Whether the State should be allowed to reopen proofs to present the signed consent form and argue waiver	The consent form and investigative facts (surrender/consent and defendant’s statement that police would find the same material on her phone) amount to a prima facie waiver; failure to produce form earlier was excusable and evidence is central	State had or should have known of the form earlier; late production prejudices defendant and delays proceedings; form irrelevant because phone contents were not analyzed	Trial court abused its discretion in denying the State’s motion to reopen proofs; appellate court reversed and remanded to allow the State to present and litigate waiver/consent evidence

People v. Simpson, 68 Ill. 2d 276 (supreme court of Illinois) (third-party presence/waiver can admit spousal statements)
People v. Trzeciak, 2013 IL 114491 (Illinois Supreme Court) (marital-communication privilege elements)
People v. Saunders, 288 Ill. App. 3d 523 (agency exception discussion)
People v. Krankel, 105 Ill. App. 3d 988 (rejecting joint-criminal-enterprise exception to marital privilege)
Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 352 Ill. App. 3d 365 (factors to consider when reopening proofs)
People v. Thompkins, 121 Ill. 2d 401 (limits on imputing third-party knowledge to the State)
People v. Keith, 148 Ill. 2d 32 (courts defer to prosecutor’s good-faith evaluation of impact of evidentiary rulings)