With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Day did not have a valid Fifth Amendment right to invoke in the first instance and because she had no legitimate fear- of further prosecution given the grant of immunity, her refusal to testify was indefensible. While there are clearly valid reasons for not wanting to call a witness to the stand solely to give her the opportunity to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, those concerns, as discussed in section III.C. of this opinion, do not unequivocally countenance against requiring a witness to take the stand. The State maintains that regardless of the validity of the Fifth Amendment privilege, the trial court should not call a witness to the stand for the singular purpose of exercising this right in the jury’s presence. See U.S. v. Griffin, 66 F.3d 68, 70 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Martin v. U.S., 756 A.2d 901, 905

A: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike witnesss testimony on direct examination when witness asserted fifth amendment on collateral matters on crossexamination particularly when witness was required to invoke privilege in presence of jury
B: holding that trial court has discretion to permit defendant to call accused witness to stand and permit witness to invoke fifth amendment privilege in front of jury where entire defense was centered on witness commission of crime
C: holding that sixth amendment only requires that witness be brought to court not that he be required to take witness stand after refusing to testify and observing that it is irrelevant whether the witnesss refusal is grounded in a valid fifth amendment privilege an invalid privilege or something else entirely
D: recognizing that trial court has duty to determine whether witness silence is properly grounded in fifth amendment and to require witness to answer where refusal to testify is not warranted
C.