This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice (unspecified), justice (unspecified) asked whether a trial judge’s contempt order that confines a witness unless he testifies raises a valid Fifth Amendment privilege issue.
What each side argues
Mr. Paz's Argument
Mr. Paz argued that while some questioning is permissible, there must be limits to forceful interrogation to avoid violating constitutional rights.
Mr. Robbins' Argument
Mr. Robbins contended that continued coercive questioning can become so forceful that the resulting statement should be deemed inadmissible.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice (unspecified), justice (unspecified) asked whether a trial judge’s contempt order that confines a witness unless he testifies raises a valid Fifth Amendment privilege issue.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9df141b8f25e51adc419-r1-2650028de037e72a.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.