government, accordingly, has a right to challenge the defendant’s story on cross-examination .... The government may impeach the defendant by developing inconsistencies in his testimony; the government may also successfully impeach him by asking questions which he refuses to answer. If the refusals could not he put before the jury, the defendant would have the unusual and grossly unfair ability to insulate himself from the challenges merely by declining to answer embarrassing questions. He alone could control the presentation of evidence to the jury. Hernandez, 646 F.2d at 978-79 (emphasis added) (citing U.S. v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331, 1341-42 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 1000, 98 S.Ct. 1656, 56 L.Ed.2d 90 (1978)); see also Neely v. Israel, 715 F.2d 1261, 1265 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>) (quoting United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d
recognizing that exercise of trial courts decision regarding witness invocation of fifth amendment in jurys presence requires consideration of defendant being entitled to have his defense fully presented to the jury holding that defendants exercise of right to testify in own behalf waives his fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination holding that trial court may draw adverse inference from habeas petitioners silence as result of fifth amendment invocation during deposition holding that the same waiver standard applies when assessing whether a defendant has waived his sixth amendment right to counsel during a postindictment interrogation as when assessing whether a defendant has waived his fifth amendment right to counsel preindictment holding in habeas corpus case that the defendant waived his right to invoke the fifth amendment during his direct testimony and that any prejudice deriving from the invocation of the privilege is  attributed to his decision to testify 