Sysop at 22:42, 14 April 2014

2014-04-14T22:42:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 14 April 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:
	===Evidence Code section 940===		===Evidence Code section 940===
	To the extent that such privilege exists under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose any matter that may tend to incriminate him.		To the extent that such privilege exists under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose any matter that may tend to incriminate him.
			''(Stats.1965, c. 299, § 2, operative Jan. 1, 1967.)''

			===Evidence Code section 404===
			Whenever the proffered evidence is claimed to be privileged under Section 940, the person claiming the privilege has the burden of showing that the proffered evidence might tend to incriminate him; and the proffered evidence is inadmissible unless it clearly appears to the court that the proffered evidence cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate the person claiming the privilege.
			''(Stats.1965, c. 299, § 2, operative Jan. 1, 1967.)''

	==When the privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked==		==When the privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked==
Line 12:		Line 17:
	"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime." (Hoffman v. U. S. (1951) 341 U.S. 479, 486 [71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118].)		"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime." (Hoffman v. U. S. (1951) 341 U.S. 479, 486 [71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118].)

	People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, ~~304~~ [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 493~~, 504~~, 114 P.3d 742~~, 751~~]		"The test is whether the statement might tend to incriminate, not whether it might tend to lead to an actual prosecution or, stated slightly differently, whether the statement could, not would, be used against the witness." (''People v. Seijas ''(2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 305 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 114 P.3d 742])

	==Effects of privilege against self-incrimination==		==Effects of privilege against self-incrimination==

Sysop: Created page with " ==Statutes== ===Evidence Code section 940=== To the extent that such privilege exists under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, a person has a..."

2014-04-14T21:51:15Z

Created page with " ==Statutes== ===Evidence Code section 940=== To the extent that such privilege exists under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, a person has a..."

New page

==Statutes==
===Evidence Code section 940===
To the extent that such privilege exists under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose any matter that may tend to incriminate him.

==When the privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked==

The privilege may be invoked "where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer." (''Hoffman v. United States'' (1951) 341 U.S. 479, 486 [71 S. Ct. 814, 95 L. Ed. 1118].) "To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result." (Id. at pp. 486–487.)

"The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime." (Hoffman v. U. S. (1951) 341 U.S. 479, 486 [71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118].)

People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 304 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 504, 114 P.3d 742, 751]

==Effects of privilege against self-incrimination==

If a witness testifies on direct testimony, but then invokes the privilege against self-incrimination on cross-examination, the entire direct may be stricken. (''People v. Daggett'' (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 751, 760; ''People v. Abner'' (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 484, 489; ''People v. McGowan'' (1926) 80 Cal.App. 293.) However, it's at the discretion of the judge as to how much of the direct testimony should be stricken. (''People v. Robinson'' (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 384, 391 [16 Cal.Rptr. 484])

In civil cases when the plaintiff has invoked, the entire civil case may be dismissed. (''Alvarez v. Sanchez'' (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 709, 713 [204 Cal.Rptr. 864].)
In civil cases when the defendant has invoked, since the Confrontation Clause is not at issue, striking the direct is deemed too harsh a penalty for most circumstances. (''Alvarez v. Sanchez'' (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 709, 713 [204 Cal.Rptr. 864.)

Privilege against self-incrimination - Revision history

Sysop at 22:42, 14 April 2014

Sysop: Created page with " ==Statutes== ===Evidence Code section 940=== To the extent that such privilege exists under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, a person has a..."