This is interesting.
In part one, didn't the judge go out of his way to make the defendant understand that he had a constitutional (5th amendment )right against self-incrimination?
But then when it comes to the 2nd A, and the state constitution, suddenly those rights don't exist?
They can't have it both ways. Actually, it sorta good that they screwed this up so badly, he can now have a better chance on appeal. However, I gotta wonder how much good the appeal is likely to do in setting law. Chance are, the might just remand it back to the court to deal with the question again.