I dissent. This is another case of the court swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat. A bare glance at the record discloses that the one important question -- and the only important one involved -- was and is whether defendant had been denied his right under the Constitution, which says, "No person shall be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case." The two obvious facts present are that defendant testified, and that he did so under a subpoena, which is compulsion within the meaning of this particular provision of the Constitution. Stripped of juridical legerdemain, that is all there is to this case.
