district court considered this testimony in sentencing McFarlane on September 6, 2001. The district court was aware of the testimony only because the same judge presided over the trial and later sentenced McFarlane. The Fifth Amendment grants to all persons the privilege against compelled self-incrimination by providing that “[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const, amend. V. The Supreme Court has limited the Fifth Amendment privilege to prohibiting the use of physical or moral compulsion; the fact that a criminal defendant faces difficult choices does not necessarily compel the individual's choice so as to implicate the Fifth Amendment. See South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 562-63, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (<HOLDING>). “The ‘Amendment speaks of compulsion,’ United
holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation holding that the fourth amendment is implicated by the withdrawal of blood to test its alcohol content holding that south dakotas law requiring a person arrested for drunk driving to submit to a blood alcohol test or face having his refusal used against him did not violate the fifth amendment holding that a motion to strike was improper where defendant assisted a drunk minor in his negligence by driving the drunk minor to his car holding that forfeiture of funds to be used for legal fees does not violate the fifth or sixth amendment