—may ask only such questions as are pertinent to a matter then under investigation, and if there be no matter under investigation, a refusal to answer questions cannot be made to constitute a contempt. When the contempt is a constructive contempt, namely, committed without the presence of the court, the affidavit of facts forming the basis of judicial action must show upon …

There was an "essential difference" between the preliminary examination and trial because the exam was "intended to be a summary proceeding to determine basic facts as to probability;" thus, the waiver did not carry over from "one distinct stage of a criminal prosecution to another."

Thus the failure of a witness to claim the privilege at a preliminary hearing does not prevent the witness from refusing to testify regarding the same incriminating material at the trial

—an order adjudging a witness guilty of contempt was annulled on certiorari because the question which he had refused to answer was not set forth, and the order therefore did not show that he had refused to answer a pertinent question, for which reason the order did not state facts showing the accused to be guilty of contempt of court.

Moreover, the fact that Jonathan failed to assert the privilege at the preliminary hearing does not prevent him from asserting it at trial

If jurisdiction is not affirmatively shown, an appellate court cannot indulge a presumption in its favor

The established rule is that a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination by testifying at one proceeding does not extend to a later, separate proceeding.

The court properly takes into consideration all of the circumstances of the case in determining whether there is a real danger that a direct answer to a question may incriminate

C. 404; but the final determination as to whether the privilege may be claimed rests with the judge.