Mayhew’s attorney properly asserted the privilege for her in open court. It cites Judson, 322 F.2d 460, and Olson v. Haas, 43 Wn. App. 484, 718 P.2d 1 (1986), in support of this argument. Both cases involved an attorney’s assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination on behalf of his client in response to an order for the production of documents. Because those cases do not consider the process required when a witness wishes to assert the privilege during her testimony in court, they do not require a different result. 38 See State v. Young, 89 Wn.2d 613, 625, 574 P.2d 1171 (1978) (courts may assume that where no authority is cited, counsel has found none after search). 39 Wise, 176 Wn.2d at 19. 40 See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 50, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984) (<HOLDING>). 41 Wise, 176 Wn.2d at 19. 42 174 Wn.2d 96,
holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence holding suppression is not a remedy for violation of vienna convention under federal law holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation holding that the appropriate remedy for a trial courts refusal to consider an indigent defendants request for new counsel is to remand for a hearing holding that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for officers failure to serve a warrant to the defendant before during or immediately after the search