phase. Now the State argues that unless we rule appellant waived her privilege, defendants will be able to request presentence investigations, “then tell the probation officer anything they want without fear of negative consequences.” We disagree. If the State believes the defendant bed to the court’s probation officer during the presentence investigation, and the defendant subsequently invokes his or her privilege against self-incrimination, the State may always offer direct evidence of any such “lies” through the testimony of the probation officer. In its final theory of waiver, the State alleges appellant’s failure to lodge a specific objection in the trial court precludes appellate review. Rules requiring a party to make a specific objection in .2d 900, 903 (5th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). Under the particular circumstances of the
holding that the district court committed plain error by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment where the error did affect a substantial right of the defendants and the admission of evidence which should have been excluded did have a prejudicial impact on the jury holding that failure to object at trial should cause this court to review solely for plain error ie error that is clear or obvious and materially prejudicial to an appellants substantial rights holding objection unnecessary where violation of rights guaranteed by fifth amendment is so improper and prejudicial as to amount to plain error effecting a defendants substantial rights holding that the error was plain based on binding constitutional doctrine and affected the defendants substantial rights by completely depriving him of his constitutionally guaranteed jury trial holding that prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify constituted plain error affecting the defendants substantial rights