In Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423; 79 S. Ct. 1257; 3 L. Ed. 2d 1344 (1959), the defendants were called before the Ohio State Legislature's Un-American Activities Commission to testify about subversive activities in the labor movement. Raley, 360 U.S. at 427. Throughout the proceedings, the three witnesses asserted their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination with respect to particular questions asked. Id. On each of these occasions, the chairman either moved on to another question or advised the witnesses that the privilege applied to only certain questions. Id. For example, the chairman told defendant Raley that he could not assert the privilege with respect to whether a particular interview took place, but that he could refuse to answer questions about the content of the interview. Raley, 360 U.S. at 427-431. Subsequently, the defendants were indicted, and then convicted, for refusal to answer certain of the commission's questions. Raley, 360 U.S. at 432-433. After the state appellate and supreme courts affirmed the convictions, the United States Supreme Court reversed. Raley, 360 U.S. at 424-425. The United States Supreme Court 3 rejected the state's contention that the convictions were proper because the privilege did not apply to the state house proceedings: While there is no suggestion that the Commission had any intent to deceive the appellants, we repeat that to sustain the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court on such a basis after the Commission had acted as it did would be to sanction the most indefensible sort of entrapment by the State--convicting a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State clearly had told him was available to him. A State may not issue commands to its citizens, under criminal sanctions, in language so vague and undefined as to afford no fair warning of what conduct might transgress them. Raley, 360 U.S. at 438. The Court reversed the convictions of all but one of the defendants. Raley, 360 U.S. at 442.