In People v. Lopez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1550, the defendant was charged with (and found guilty of) an assault, street terrorism and other crimes, and the jury found he committed the assault for the benefit of a criminal street gang. During the trial, a fellow gang member was called as a witness to testify about a gang-related assault he (the witness) had committed about a month before the assault committed by the defendant. This was done to establish that the gang was involved in a pattern of criminal gang activity, as required by Penal Code section 186.22. (Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1552-1553.) The witness had already pled guilty to the charge against him, and had filed no appeal within the allotted time, so he had no legal basis to refuse to testify. Nonetheless, before he took the witness stand, "he made it clear he had no intention of testifying against Lopez," even after being warned by the court that his continued refusal to testify would constitute a contempt of court. (Id. at p. 1553.) The trial court allowed the prosecutor to put the witness on the stand, where the witness refused to answer questions based on the Fifth Amendment privilege to which he was not entitled. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in requiring the witness to refuse to testify, and holding the witness in contempt of court, in the presence of the jury. Lopez first explained the rationale for the rule that it is improper to require a witness with a valid Fifth Amendment privilege to invoke the privilege in front of a jury. Doing so would "encourage inappropriate speculation on the part of jurors about the reasons for the invocation," and would allow an "adverse inference, damaging to the defense, to be drawn by jurors despite the possibility the assertion of privilege may be based upon reasons unrelated to guilt." (Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1554.) Where there is a valid privilege, questions designed to elicit that privilege "'present to the jury information that is misleading, irrelevant to the issue of the witness's or the defendant's credibility, and not subject to examination by defense counsel,'" so "'we do not allow this form of questioning.'" (Id. at p. 1555.) But the analysis is different, Lopez tells us, when a witness "has no constitutional or statutory right to refuse to testify . . . ." (Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1554.) The appellate court held that the procedure followed in that case was proper, observing that where a trial court has determined out of the presence of the jury that a witness's privilege has been waived or no longer exists, the jury is entitled to hear the witness's improper claim of privilege and may draw a negative inference when the witness refuses to answer questions. ( Id. at pp. 1554-1555.) The court in Lopez explained, "Once a court determines a witness has a valid Fifth Amendment right not to testify, it is, of course, improper to require him to invoke the privilege in front of a jury; such a procedure encourages inappropriate speculation on the part of jurors about the reasons for the invocation. An adverse inference, damaging to the defense, may be drawn by jurors despite the possibility the assertion of privilege may be based upon reasons unrelated to guilt. These points are well established by existing case law. (See, e.g., People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 441.) But where a witness has no constitutional or statutory right to refuse to testify, a different analysis applies. Jurors are entitled to draw a negative inference when such a witness refuses to provide relevant testimony." ( People v. Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1554, ) In sum, in People v. Lopez (1999) the defendant was charged with various felonies, including assault. The information also alleged the defendant committed the assault for the benefit of the Southside criminal street gang. (Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1552.) At trial, the prosecutor called a veteran gang member, Juan Miranda, to help establish Southside was involved in a pattern of criminal gang activity. (Id. at p. 1553.) The prosecutor intended to have Miranda testify about a gang-related assault he had committed about a month before the incident at issue in Lopez. Miranda had already pleaded guilty to the charge and his time to appeal the conviction had expired. (Ibid.) Before Miranda took the witness stand, he informed the court he would not testify. The court told Miranda he had no right to withhold testimony and no Fifth Amendment privilege to invoke, but Miranda refused to answer any questions. (71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1553.) The court "ordered Miranda to testify before the jury. Miranda took the stand and refused to answer questions, basing his refusal on a privilege he was not entitled to claim." (Id. at p. 1555.) On appeal, the defendant contended the court erred by "requiring Miranda to refuse to testify and finding him in contempt of court in the presence of the jury." (Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1552.) The Lopez court rejected this claim. It held "the jury was entitled to consider Miranda's improper claim of privilege against him as evidence relevant to demonstrate exactly what the gang expert had opined: that gang members act as a unit to advance the cause of the gang and to protect their members." (Id. at pp. 1555-1556.) The court explained that a "'witness may not employ the privilege to avoid giving testimony that he simply would prefer not to give.' But that is exactly what Miranda tried to do. Given that his decision was fully informed and willful--and in disobedience of a court order--the jury was entitled to consider his defiance against him and, to the extent it validated the gang expert's testimony, against the defendant." (Id. at p. 1556.)