California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Warford v. Medeiros, 160 Cal.App.3d 1035, 207 Cal.Rptr. 94 (Cal. App. 1984):
7 The only exception to this rule is the situation in which the trial court finds that the person claiming the privilege could " 'legitimately refuse to answer all relevant questions,' United States v. Gomez-Rojas, 507 F.2d 1213, 1220 (5th Cir.1975), because of the threat of incrimination from any relevant questioning...." (S.E.C. v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc. (5th Cir.1981) 659 F.2d 660, 668-669.) In the absence of such a finding, a person cannot be totally excused from responding to relevant inquiries and may invoke the privilege only with respect to genuinely threatening questions. (Id.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.