Opinion ID: 1860956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: issue #6: did the trial court abuse its discretion in strikng testimony given by the witness prior to his assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination?

Text: The defendant asserts that Kretlow waived his privilege against self-incrimination by the testimony he gave prior to invoking the privilege. The defendant cites the court to Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951), in which a witness called before a grand jury testified that she had been a member of a local communist party, had served as treasurer, had been in possession of the membership and dues records but had turned these materials over to someone else. When asked the name of the person to whom she had delivered these materials, the witness refused to answer and invoked the privilege against self-incrimination. The court sustained a criminal contempt conviction against the witness, ruling that she had waived the privilege by not asserting it before giving self-incriminating testimony. However, the court in Rogers pointed out that the witness originally declined to answer the question on an untenable groundthat she wished to protect others from punishment. Petitioner's claim of the privilege against self-incrimination was pure afterthought. Id. at 371. The court pointed out that the privilege is solely for the benefit of the witness, and not to shield others. In addition, Mrs. Rogers had already incriminated herself by her earlier testimony about her party activities. The instant case is quite different. Mr. Kretlow, in the short time he had testified before asserting the privilege, said nothing of an incriminating nature. Moreover, the record supports the contention that had Mr. Kretlow understood the situation before he began testifying he would have said nothing. As soon as Mr. Kretlow was advised of his rights by the judge, he immediately requested that his attorney be called. Once his attorney arrived and made clear the situation to him, Mr. Kretlow asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege. If Mr. Kretlow waived his privilege by his earlier testimony, it was not a knowing waiver.