With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and convicted of Bryan’s murder, and Strebendt’s statements describing the conspiracy between Torre and Angelina came to light. Angelina was not questioned about these events in any proceeding, as she did not testify at Torre’s criminal trial and declined to answer questions regarding her alleged involvement in the murder during her deposition in the instant case. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court’s finding of prejudice was warranted. Moreover, Angelina’s statements to investigating officers in the days following Bryan’s death did not waive her privilege against self-incrimination with respect to the later criminal proceeding against Torre or with respect to the instant civil proceeding. See United States v. Licavoli, 604 F.2d 613, 623 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); see also McCarthy v. Arndstein, 262 U.S. 355,

A: holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege
B: holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific
C: holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs
D: recognizing privilege
C.