Rawls wasn't charged with a crime. The Fifth Amendment is not really technically applicable because there is no criminal prosecution in play, although it is oftentimes erroneously utilized and allowed in situations like this due to judicial interpretation and consequent precedent. . Rawls should be claiming the First Amendment right not to speak and the Fourth Amend right to privacy.. He should be demanding and reminding the judge of both the judge's duty to guarantee these protections in accordance with the judge's oath and the judge's lack of authority to order otherwise, and thereby convert the exercise of his rights into a crime. . This case is prime ground for habeus corpus.