In People v. Schroeder (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 784, the defendant sought to introduce the testimony of a woman who was also involved in the crimes charged against him and was currently awaiting sentencing after entering a "'conditional plea.'" ( People v. Schroeder, supra, 227 Cal. App. 3d at p. 787.) The woman appeared with her attorney, had consulted with him, knew about her privilege against self-incrimination, was advised against testifying, yet appeared willing to testify. ( Id. at pp. 787, 789.) The court proceeded to question the woman repeatedly whether she understood her right to refuse to testify, her attorney had advised her to remain silent, and her testimony could negatively impact her plea agreement. "'. . . I have never yet seen at least--I might be seeing it today, a client fail to follow her attorney's advise when advised that answers he or she may give could result in he or she being incriminated in that those questions can be used against you, . . . in your own case. . . . . . . . . . I don't know if it means your plea being accepted or rejected, or whether or not you end up going to prison or not.'" ( Id. at pp. 789-790.) On appeal, the court concluded these inquiries "exceeded the trial court's duty simply to ensure the witness was fully apprised of her privilege against self-incrimination," and the trial court "in essence became an advocate repeatedly cautioning the witness about the folly of her decision." ( Id. at p. 793.)