Matthew Shane Wester Marriage.jpg

Matthew Shane Wester, 37, and former student Amy Nicole Cox, 18, married in Gulf Shores on Saturday, June 13, 2015. Wester was indicted in January 2015 for his relationship with Cox. (Instagram)

( )

The marriage between a former Blount County teacher and his wife, who was a student when he was teaching, is a sham designed to keep his "victim" from having to testify against him, prosecutors contend in court records filed Monday.

Matthew Shane Wester, 38, was indicted in January 2015 on one count of a school employee having sexual contact with a student under the age of 19. Five months later, Wester married that student, 18-year-old Amy Nicole Cox.

Now, with his trial set for later this month, Blount County District Attorney Pamela Casey is asking that Cox be required to testify against her husband.

Wester, a math teacher and coach at Cleveland High School, was placed on paid leave in November 2014 amid the allegations. According to the indictment, Wester "intentionally and knowingly engaged with a male or female student under the age of 19 in sexual contact which was done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party, to wit - kissing and spending the night with the victim."

Wester taught 10th Grade Advanced Geometry, 11th Grade Geometry, 12th Grade Algebraic Connections and 9th Grade Algebra. He was also an assistant varsity football coach and head track coach. He is a graduate of Cleveland High School.

According to Casey's pretrial motion, Wester resigned his teaching position on Feb. 24, 2015, weeks after his indictment. He was married at the time of his arrest, but had filed for divorce in January and the divorce was granted in April 2015. Wester's then-wife got custody of their child.

"On June 13, 2015, just 67 days following the divorce from 'wife No. 1,' and less than five months prior to the initial trial setting in this matter, the defendant married the student whom he subjected to sexual contact while he was a teacher and she was student,'' Casey wrote. "It is the state's position that the marriage to the student is a sham by the defendant to prevent the student from testifying against him."

In the court motion, Casey wrote she expects the student to claim the marital privilege under Alabama law, which says the husband and wife may testify either for or against each other in criminal cases, but "shall not be compelled to do so."

Casey contends no marital privilege exists for the student and Wester because, according to case law, there is no privilege where one spouse is charged with a crime against the person of the other spouse. "Thus, because the student (now wife No. 2) was a victim of Wester's, the privilege does not exist."

She cited Alabama cases dating back to the 1800s where wives were compelled to testify against their husbands in cases where the crime was committed against the spouse. In a 1960's case, Wyatt v. U.S., the United States Supreme Court held that it was not error for the trial court to compel a wife to testify against her husband. In that case, the defendant was tried and convicted in federal court of knowingly transporting a woman in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution. The woman, who had married the defendant after the date of the criminal offense, was ordered over her objection and that of the defendant, to testify for the prosecution. In that ruling, the Supreme Court wrote, "We are led to hold it not an allowable choice for a prostituted witness-wife 'voluntarily' to decide to protect her husband by declining to testify against him. For if a defendant can induce a woman against her 'will' to enter a life of prostitution for his benefit - and the Act rests on the view that he can - by the same token it should be considered that he can, at least as easily, persuade one who has already fallen victim to his influence that she must also protect him."

Casey wrote this: "Clearly if a 38-year-old teacher can induce an 18-year-old student to engage in sexual contact with him, and to subsequently marry him, he can persuade 'one who has already fallen victim to his influence that she must also protect him' at trial.

Casey declined to comment further, saying "the motion speaks for itself." Efforts to reach Wester's attorney for comment weren't immediately successful.

Wester's trial is set for April 25. According to court filings, an outside judge has been appointed to hear the case after the judges within the district recused themselves from hearing the case.