TRAFFIX DEVICES v. MARKETING DISPLAYS

[7] The Supreme Court of Ohio’s determination
that Batt did not have a valid
Fifth Amendment privilege because she
denied any involvement in the abuse of the
children clearly conflicts with Hoffman
and Grunewald. Batt had ‘‘reasonable
cause’’ to apprehend danger from her answers
if questioned at respondent’s trial.
Hoffman, supra, at 486, 71 S.Ct. 814.
Batt spent extended periods of time alone
with Alex and his brother in the weeks
immediately preceding discovery of their
injuries. She was with Alex within the
potential timeframe of the fatal trauma.
The defense’s theory of the case was that
Batt, not respondent, was responsible for
Alex’s death and his brother’s uncharged
injuries. In this setting, it was reasonable
for Batt to fear that answers to S 22possible
questions might tend to incriminate her.
Batt therefore had a valid Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination.