State Ex Rel. Mazurek v. District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District

*51¶34 I concur with the Court’s conclusion that § 46-16-701, MCA, does not preclude the State from using Ingraham’s testimony from the first trial during its case-in-chief at the retrial of this case.

¶35 I dissent from the Court’s conclusion that use of his first trial testimony in his second trial would not violate his constitutional right to be free from being compelled to testify against himself.

¶36 In making his constitutional argument, Ingraham invokes the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Harrison (1968), 392 U.S. 219, 88 S.Ct. 2008, 20 L.Ed.2d 1047. In Harrison,…