California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Buford, B211186, No. MA032463 (Cal. App. 2010):
"... [D]efendants must allege a violation of their own rights in order to have standing to argue that testimony of a third party should be excluded because it is coerced. It is settled that the accused has no standing to object to a violation of another's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." (People v. Badgett (1995) 10 Cal.4th 330, 343.) "... [T]here is a significant difference in the burden of proof applicable to a claim under the Fifth Amendment and defendants' claim that the testimony of a third party is subject to exclusion as a matter of due process. The burden is on the People to demonstrate the voluntariness of a defendant's admissions or confessions by a preponderance of the evidence." (Id. at p. 348.) "By contrast, when a defendant makes a motion to exclude coerced testimony of a third party on due process grounds, the burden of proving improper coercion is upon the defendant." (Ibid.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.