Opinion ID: 390265
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The District Court's Instruction to Saka.

Text: 35 The trial court instructed Saka: Now Mr. Saka, I am told that you may wish to invoke the Fifth Amendment on grounds that your answer may tend to incriminate you or that you may have serious apprehension of serious bodily harm. Now if that be so I shall afford you a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel before making an answer. Saka then answered: I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate myself. 36 Fear of reprisal is not a valid basis upon which to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege. United States v. Panza, supra, 612 F.2d at 437. However, although the court's instruction was faulty, Saka explicitly placed his assertion of the privilege on the basis that to answer the question might be to incriminate himself. Moreover, later in the trial the trial court expressly asked the parties whether they wished to return Saka to the stand for examination to determine whether his claim of incrimination under the Fifth Amendment is tenable. Appellants assured the court that we all are of the same view that his invocation of the claim is valid. The trial court's error in its instruction to Saka was harmless error. 37