California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lopez, 71 Cal.App.4th 1550, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 (Cal. App. 1999):
The court responded by observing "appellant's authorities do not support her proposition. Her cases involve situations in which the government or the defendant questioned a witness or a co-defendant, knowing that a valid, unwaived Fifth Amendment privilege would be asserted. [Citations.] She fails to offer support relating to the very different problem, present in our case, in which the government attempts to cross-examine a witness-defendant who has previously waived his privilege against self-incrimination." (United States v. Hearst, supra, 563 F.2d at p. 1341.)
The court explained, "When a witness or a defendant has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege, government questions designed to elicit this privilege present to the jury information that is misleading, irrelevant to the issue of the witness's or the defendant's credibility, and not subject to examination by defense counsel. [Citation.] Therefore, we do not allow this form of questioning. [p] But when a defendant [or a witness] has voluntarily waived his Fifth Amendment privilege ..., the rationale for prohibiting privilege-invoking queries ... does not apply." (United States v. Hearst, supra, 563 F.2d at p. 1341.) We agree and think the same analysis makes sense here.
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.