Legal Opinion
United States v. Steffen
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 18, 1951No. Crim. 32883, 32986PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOODMAN, District Judge.
The witness Archer Zamlock has claimed the privilege to refuse to answer certain questions upon the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him or degrade him. The privilege claimed’is personal and may only be advantaged by the witness himself. Whether it is allowable is for the court to say. The court’s decision must be based upon the circumstances and depends upon the reality of danger to the witness.
In the present state of the record I am satisfied that the danger of self incrimination is real and that the constitutional rights of the witness will be…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Rogers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Temple v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1881
- Wood v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Emery v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- James H. Ellis, Jr. v. United States of America, Alfred M. Watkins v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
- United States v. Gondolfo Miranti, United States of America v. Domenico BandoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Matthew Ottomano v. United States of America, United States of America v. Matthew OttomanoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1973
- State v. DeColaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Ray C. Ballantyne v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.