Can a witness be compelled to answer a question of privilege?

"It is a bedrock principle of American (and California) law, embedded in various state and federal constitutional and statutory provisions, that witnesses may not be compelled to incriminate themselves." (People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 304; accord, Hoffman v. United States (1951) 341 U.S. 479, 486 [71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118].) "A witness may assert the privilege who has 'reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.' [Citations.] However, 'the witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in doing so he would incriminate himselfhis say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.' [Citation.] The court may require the witness 'to answer if "it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken."' [Citation.] 'To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.' [Citation.] To deny an assertion of the privilege, 'the judge must be "'perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the

Page 10