CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Privileges
......Self-Incrimination Privilege
.........Exercise of Privilege
 12 Cards On This Topic:
  • Babysitter/witness who denied all culpability in child's death had a valid U.S. Const. Amend V privilege against self-incrimination: Privilege protects the innocent as well as the guilty.
  • By virtue of PC §1026.5(b)(7), NGI committee facing extended commitment beyond the maximum prison sentence has the right to refuse to testify, a right constitutionally guaranteed criminal Ds.
  • After arrest but before receiving Miranda warnings, D must make a timely, unambiguous assertion of privilege against self-incrimination to benefit from it.
  • By forcing court to resolve defense privilege claims before trial, without DA's access to disputed evidence, Ct.App. imposed procedures neither required nor justified by 5th & 6th Amends., and manifestly unfair to the DA.
  • Allowing a witness to be put on stand to exercise 5th Amend. privilege before jury would invite improper inference; better practice is for court to require exercise of privilege out of presence of jury.
  • Letting jury learn witness invoked privilege against self-incrimination may serve no legitimate purpose and cause jury to draw improper inference, it is not error for trial court to fail to adhere to practice.
  • No error to refuse to instruct jury not to draw inference from witness' invocation of 5th Amend. where no evidence before jury W had exercised it, and jury would be instructed parties not required to call witnesses.
  • Where proper admonition given, express statement waiving Miranda rights not required.
  • Trial ct. erred when it allowed witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege (1) after testifying under plaintiff's questioning, (2) on a blanket basis, and (3) in front of the jury.
  • MDO's, SVP's and NGI's are all similarly situated with respect to the testimonial privilege provided for in PC §1026.5(b)(7); strict scrutiny test applies.
  • B/c the interrogation should have stopped when D invoked his right to remain silent, admission of subsequent stmts violated Miranda; error harmless given the evid. and no coercion as D’s will was not overborne by cont'd questioning.
  • When lawyer invokes client's privilege against self-incrimination, under clear authority of client, client need not personally invoke privilege.


    •