and cumulative effect of the trial court's errors. Since we do not find error with respect to any of the issues, we do not address this claim separately. 2 . Gary was charged with possession of a firearm, breaking and entering, conspiracy, assault with a dangerous weapon, and reckless driving. 3 . Hopkins was represented by three different attorneys in the v ion by a different path, namely, that Hopkins’ decision to testify at the first trial was not a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his Fifth Amendment privilege because he had not been fully apprised of the consequences of his testimony with respect to the state proceedings. In light of the above discussion, we need not address the propriety of this decision. See In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 165 (6th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). 7 . These so-called statistics, compiled by
holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination holding that juveniles request to call parent is assertion of fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination holding that the constitutional privilege against selfincrimination is applicable in the case of juveniles as it is with respect to adults