In a self-representation case, how should the judge rule on an objection based on the Fifth Amendment during cross-examination?

In a self-representation case, a judge must carefully navigate the rights of the witness, particularly regarding the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. When a party objects on Fifth Amendment grounds during cross-examination, the key issue is whether the question poses a risk of self-incrimination.

Sustaining the objection and dismissing the case, stopping the trial to appoint a public defender, or postponing the cross-examination are not appropriate responses in this context. The judge's role is not to dismiss the case or provide representation but to ensure a fair trial while respecting constitutional rights.

By overruling the objection and requiring an answer, the judge acknowledges that while the witness has the right against self-incrimination, this right is fundamental but also has limits in the context of a trial. If the specific question posed does not reasonably elicit incriminating information or if the witness can answer without risking self-incrimination, the judge can compel the answer. This approach balances the need for the trial to progress with the protections afforded under the Fifth Amendment.