## Facts

- A juvenile, J.W.Y., faced a delinquency petition alleging he aided and abetted carnal knowledge of a 13-year-old complainant.
- At the fact-finding hearing, the complainant testified that J.W.Y. assisted another juvenile in sexually assaulting her and that she had never previously had sexual intercourse.
- The defense sought to impeach the complainant by calling two juveniles, Roy S. and Robert S., to testify that each had engaged in prior consensual intercourse with the complainant.
- The government informed the court that such testimony could expose Roy and Robert to criminal liability for carnal knowledge of a minor.
- The court appointed counsel for Roy and Robert; after consulting counsel, each invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and was excused from testifying.
- Without that impeachment evidence, the court found J.W.Y. involved in delinquency.
- J.W.Y. appealed, claiming the government improperly pressured the witnesses to invoke the Fifth Amendment, depriving him of compulsory process.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s warning about self-incrimination risk and the court’s resulting acceptance of Roy’s and Robert’s Fifth Amendment invocations improperly interfered with J.W.Y.’s right to compulsory process.
2. Whether a juvenile respondent’s right to present defense witnesses can override a witness’s valid privilege against self-incrimination.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the delinquency adjudication.
- The court held the witnesses faced a realistic risk of self-incrimination if they testified and therefore could validly invoke the Fifth Amendment.
- The court found no improper governmental coercion or intimidation; informing the court of the risk and appointing counsel were proper protective measures.
- The court held compulsory process does not entitle a respondent to compel testimony barred by a valid Fifth Amendment claim.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant’s (or juvenile respondent’s) Sixth Amendment compulsory-process right is subject to established testimonial privileges, including the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- A witness may refuse to testify when the testimony poses a realistic, non-speculative possibility of criminal liability.
- Prosecutorial conduct that accurately identifies self-incrimination risk and supports appointment of independent counsel, without threats or coercion, is not unconstitutional interference with defense witnesses.
- The loss of impeachment or exculpatory evidence resulting from a witness’s valid Fifth Amendment invocation does not, by itself, establish a constitutional violation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the adjudication because the defense witnesses properly invoked the Fifth Amendment in the face of genuine self-incrimination risk, and the government’s actions in raising that risk and facilitating counsel did not amount to coercion or a denial of compulsory process.


In re J.W.Y., 363 A.2d 674 (D.C. 1976)