Court Opinion

ID: 9547488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:48:00.69717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:48.351047
License: Public Domain

GRODIN, J., Concurring.
I understand the majority to hold that California’s privilege against self-incrimination is violated unless a juvenile is provided with use immunity for statements he makes to a probation officer or testimony he gives at a fitness hearing. To reach that conclusion, we must necessarily find that a juvenile’s testimony is compelled by the nature of the fitness proceeding. The proceeding combines relaxed evidentiary rules, a relatively low burden of proof, and, most importantly, a presumption of unfitness. Taken together, these factors create a substantial likelihood that *812the juvenile will be found unfit unless he testifies in his own behalf. I believe that this risk of an adverse judgment is so great that it constitutes a compulsive sanction against exercise of the self-incrimination privilege. For these reasons, which I believe are implicit in the majority opinion, I concur.
The petition of real party in interest for a rehearing was denied April 4, 1985. The opinion was modified to read as printed above. Lucas, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.