California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Nieber, D073059 (Cal. App. 2019):
7. Appellants point to People v. Perez (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 863 as distinguishing Morgain but this case is not analogous to Perez as there, the trial court allowed extensive questioning of the witness as a hostile witness, despite the witness's refusal, and here, the trial court only allowed the prosecutor to ask a few basic questions before holding R.S. in contempt. (Id. at pp. 884-889.)
8. CALCRIM No. 358 (Evidence of Defendant's Statements) states:
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.