Opinion ID: 390239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Assertion of Fifth Amendment Privilege

Text: 58 Another argument raised by appellants was similarly rejected in Diecidue, a case in which Willie Noriega also testified as a government witness. In both trials, Noriega chose to exercise his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In both appeals the defendants have argued that Noriega's decision to exercise his Fifth Amendment right denied them the right of confrontation. The questions which prompted assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege were almost identical in both proceedings. In Diecidue we noted that where a witness legitimately invokes the privilege, the testimony is to be struck only if the defendants' resultant inability to complete their questioning creates a substantial risk of prejudice. Generally, it is only when a witness refuses to answer questions on direct, as opposed to collateral issues, that his testimony is excised. The questions asked of Noriega were aimed at undermining his credibility. His credibility had already been the subject of intense attack during cross-examination. Therefore, as in Diecidue, the responses illicited by defendants' questions would have been mere cumulative evidence of credibility. 603 F.2d at 552. The trial judge's refusal to strike the responses was not erroneous. This same rationale applies to defendants' argument relating to witness Joseph Carter's decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. 11