compel the appearance and testimony of the judgment debtor the concomitant authority to compel production of documents through a subpoena duces tecum for a judgment debtor examination under § 513.380. Id. at 932. Because “a document in the possession of the witness is barely distinguishable from requiring the witness to give testimony when the facts lie within the knowledge of the witness,” id., and because “the essences of the testimony are identical,” id., subpoenaing private documents for production at a judgment debtor’s examination from a natural judgment debtor who asserts his privilege against self-inerimination raises the presumption that the private documents will tend to incriminate him. See State ex rel. Shapiro Realty & Inv. Co. v. Cloyd, 615 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Mo. banc 1981), (<HOLDING>). The judgment creditors having failed to rebut
holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand holding that when a witnesss previous disclosure is not an actual admission of guilt or incriminating facts the witness subsequently may assert the privilege and decline to testify as to matters that might incriminate him holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that article i section 19 of the missouri constitution requires that once a witness claims the privilege against selfinerimination afforded by that provision a rebuttable presumption arises that the witness answer might tend to incriminate him holding that if testimony could incriminate the witness for other crimes he may properly assert the privilege