California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Memro, 11 Cal.4th 786, 12 Cal.App.4th 783, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P2d 1305 (Cal. 1995):
Defendant also contends that the court erred by not holding an in camera hearing on an offer of proof regarding inconsistent defenses. (He does not point us to anything in the record, however, that shows that the court would have understood his request as pertaining to an offer of proof regarding inconsistent defenses, if indeed it would have so pertained.) Citing Simmons v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, he maintains that he was unconstitutionally forced to waive one constitutional right to invoke another. He asserts that he had to "diminish his right to due process of law in presenting his basis for severance of the charges" in order to "protect the invasion of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment...."
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.