context: Juveniles enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed to adults by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 832 F.2d 229, 237-38
citation_a.parenthetical: distinguishing Perry as applying only when the defendant's testimo ny was required by a statutory presumption
citation_a.sentence: Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 393-94, 88 S.Ct. 967, 975-77, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); United States v. Perry, 788 F.2d 100, 115-16 (3d Cir.1986) (availability of judicial grant of use immunity with respect to defendant’s testimony in rebutting the presumption of dangerousness sufficient to avoid violation of Fifth Amendment); cf. United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 237-38 (1st Cir.1987) (distinguishing Perry as applying only when the defendant’s testimo ny was required by a statutory presumption).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 788 F.2d 100, 115-16
citation_b.parenthetical: availability of judicial grant of use immunity with respect to defendant's testimony in rebutting the presumption of dangerousness sufficient to avoid violation of Fifth Amendment
citation_b.sentence: Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 393-94, 88 S.Ct. 967, 975-77, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); United States v. Perry, 788 F.2d 100, 115-16 (3d Cir.1986) (availability of judicial grant of use immunity with respect to defendant’s testimony in rebutting the presumption of dangerousness sufficient to avoid violation of Fifth Amendment); cf. United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 237-38 (1st Cir.1987) (distinguishing Perry as applying only when the defendant’s testimo ny was required by a statutory presumption).