In what circumstances will the court annull a judgment finding petitioners guilty of contempt for failing to advise them of their constitutional rights?

Applying these principles to the cases before the court, it is clear that the judgments holding petitioners guilty of contempt must be annulled. By requiring petitioners, [153 Cal.App.2d 151] who were without the aid of counsel, to testify without advising them of their constitutional rights, the court violated their privilege against self-incrimination. And petitioners cannot be said to have waived their privilege since such waiver must be 'informed and intelligent' in order to be voluntary. Wood v. United States, supra. We must assume petitioners were ignorant of their constitutional rights since they were not advised thereof by either court or counsel.