[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you taped the conversations without your wife's knowledge, you violated federal (and probably state) wiretapping laws, which means the conversation would probably be inadmissible and you could face criminal charges! Big no no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't these laws vary widely by state?

In New York, you only need the knowledge/consent of one party to record a phone call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you're right, it's still a violation of federal wiretapping laws (Linda Tripp says hello), so it is manifestly unwise to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Tripp got in trouble under Maryland wiretapping law (which requires both parties' consent). The federal wiretap law only requires the consent of one party. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

Also, isn't evidence only excluded if law enforcement is the party that uses illegal methods? I thought if a private citizen obtained information illegally and then turned it over to law enforcement, yeah, he can get in trouble, but the evidence isn't tainted. Not 100% sure on this though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right--it looks like it's okay to tape the conversation if you are one of the people involved in the conversation. He just couldn't tape his wife telling someone else that he never assaulted her, etc.

I don't know about the other thing.

This brings up another decent point: don't trust a lawyer who pretends to know everything about every facet of the law. No one knows everything about their specialty, let alone the broader legal landscape.

This is why this is just for general legal info, mmmkay?