California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Aguilar, 218 Cal.App.3d 1556, 267 Cal.Rptr. 879 (Cal. App. 1990):
Appellant argues the information gleaned by the prosecutor from his privileged statements to the hypnotist assisted in establishing the prosecution's theory of the case, i.e., that appellant was a drug dealer who killed his girlfriend because he feared she would turn him in to the police. Assuming this evidence initially possessed the probative value assigned it by appellant, 4 it was merely cumulative to other testimony concerning appellant's participation in drug transactions. In addition, we must presume the jury abided by the court's admonition that the incident related by the hypnotist had nothing to do with either this case or the murder being investigated by the officer who stopped appellant, and that appellant was neither a defendant nor a suspect in any federal action. The probative value, if any, of the complained of testimony was eliminated by this admonition, which also cured any prejudicial effect the testimony might otherwise have had. The error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705.)
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination And Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel
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.