status: such a requirement, without more, does not give rise to a self-executing privilege. The result may be different if the questions put to the probationer, however, relevant to his probationary status, call for answers that would incriminate him in a pending or later criminal prosecution. [Thus,] * * * if the State, either expressly or by implication, asserts that invocation of the privilege would lead to revocation of probation, it would have created the classic penalty situation, the failure to assert the privilege would be excused, and the probationer’s answers would be deemed compelled and inadmissible in a criminal prosecution. Murphy, 465 U.S. at 435, 104 S.Ct. at 1146. In the present case, Kaquatosh was under a court order to comply with the poli cies of the sex-of pp.1997) (<HOLDING>); State v. Fuller, 276 Mont. 155, 915 P.2d 809,
holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs holding a juveniles request to speak to a probation officer is not a per se invocation of fifth amendment rights holding if a probationer is required to participate in therapy which involves truthfully answering questions designed to solicit incriminating responses a fifth amendment violation occurs if the state expressly or by implication asserts that invocation of the privilege would lead to revocation of probation holding that juveniles request for parent is invocation of fifth amendment rights holding adverse inference permissible in the face of defendants repeated invocation of fifth amendment privilege in discovery responses