nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
I don’t see any waiver of self incrimination here.
I believe I can shut up anytime I want to.
But, but ... if you don’t talk, you must be guilty (for what you would not say) ...
Kind of like, let us search, if you are innocent, what is the problem.
If ‘they’ want it their way, I guess I will zip my lips at the initial contact.
But what does in matter, anyway. Just lock me up, you know you want to.
There is a long-established rule of court procedure which indicates that, with very few exceptions, the testimony of a witness for either side should only be considered reliable when it is subjected to cross-examination by the opposing side; neither side is allowed to introduce testimony from a witness which will not be available for cross-examination unless they can demonstrate either that the witness meets certain conditions that would justify a presumption of reliability, or that the adverse party is responsible for the witness' inability to testify. The Zimmerman case is an example of the latter: any statements that Trayvon Martin can be shown to have made could be admitted by the prosecution because George Zimmerman's actions, whether legal or not, caused Trayvon Martin to be unavailable for cross-examination.