Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): trial court as a prerequisite to appellate review are rooted in the well-established principle that appellate courts are courts of review, and that trial judges should be given an opportunity to correct any errors occurring in trial proceedings before complaint is taken to a higher court. Application of those rules makes perfect sense in normal instances of trial error; however, the instant issue presents a rare example of an issue where fundamental fairness requires an exception to the rule. The view that a defendant’s failure to object to denial of the right against self-incrimination does not necessarily constitute a waiver of the right to assert such error on appeal was supported inferentially in O’Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 93, 87 S.Ct. 252, 253-54, 17 L.Ed.2d 189, 191 (1966) (<HOLDING>), and expressly in Walker v. United States, 404 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination (B) holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific (C) holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from asserting an indemnity claim against a state (D) recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination (E) holding state procedural rule requiring trial objections could not bar an appellant from asserting a violation of his constitutional privilege against selfincrimination
Output (English): holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from asserting an indemnity claim against a state