In McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971) the Court considered the constitutionality of a state procedure that subjected the defendant to a single trial in which the jury was to both determine guilt and fix punishment at death or life imprisonment. In McGautha, the Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that he was constitutionally entitled to a bifurcated trial so that he could remain silent in the guilt determination phase but, if found guilty, testify in the punishment phase. Under the single-trial system, if he elected to testify on matters pertaining to punishment, there was a danger that his testimony could adversely affect him on the issue of guilt. The United States Supreme Court held this procedure to be constitutional, notwithstanding that the defendant was faced with a difficult choice. Id. at 217-20. The Supreme Court observed that "The criminal process, like the rest of the legal system, is replete with situations requiring 'the making of difficult judgments' as to which course to follow. Although a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the Constitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose." (McGautha v. California, supra, 402 U.S. at p. 213.) The court went on to explain: "It has long been held that a defendant who takes the stand in his own behalf cannot then claim the privilege against cross-examination on matters reasonably related to the subject matter of his direct examination. It is not thought overly harsh in such situations to require that the determination whether to waive the privilege take into account the matters which may be brought out on cross-examination. It is also generally recognized that a defendant who takes the stand in his own behalf may be impeached by proof of prior convictions or the like. Again, it is not thought inconsistent with the enlightened administration of criminal justice to require the defendant to weigh such pros and cons in deciding whether to testify." (Id. at p. 215.) The United States Supreme Court held the practice of determining guilt and penalty issues in a single trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination even though it made a capital defendant choose between testifying in the hope of a lenient sentence and risking self-incrimination, or remaining silent and facing a harsh sentence. "The criminal process, like the rest of the legal system, is replete with situations requiring the 'making of difficult judgments' as to which course to follow. Although a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the Constitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose." (Id. at p. 213.)