This section says that generally, people do not have the right to refuse to testify or share information in court unless a specific law gives them that right. It means you can't refuse to be a witness, share information, or present items like documents if asked in a legal setting, unless there's a law that says you can.

This law explains when legal privileges, which protect confidential communications, can be waived. Generally, if someone with a privilege willingly discloses important information from a protected communication, or lets it be disclosed without objection, they waive the privilege. However, if multiple people share a privilege, one person waiving it doesn't affect the others' right to keep it. Also, sharing privileged communication in confidence for necessary purposes doesn't waive the privilege. Lastly, if the disclosure itself is considered privileged, it doesn't count as a waiver.

This law is about what happens when someone chooses not to testify or disclose certain information because they have the right to keep it private, which is called exercising a 'privilege.' It says that no one, including the judge or lawyers, is allowed to make comments about this choice, and no one should assume anything negative about the person who made this choice. This means that their decision not to testify cannot be used to question their honesty or the case's issues.

Also, if there's any risk that the jury might think negatively because of this choice, the court must tell the jury that they should not make any negative assumptions or think the person is less believable because they exercised this right.

This section explains how claims of privilege are determined in a proceeding. A presiding officer will handle it just like a court does for similar claims in other scenarios.

If someone refuses to reveal information because they say it's privileged, they can't be punished for that unless a court orders them to disclose it and they still refuse. However, this rule doesn't apply to government agencies with special contempt powers, or certain hearings like those by the Industrial Accident Commission. If no specific rules apply, a particular court procedure is followed to decide if disclosure is needed.

This law explains how a court should handle claims of privileged information, such as attorney work product, during legal proceedings. Normally, a court officer cannot ask for this information to be disclosed just to decide if it's legitimately privileged. However, if a special type of hearing (as per Section 1524 of the Penal Code) finds no other way to decide the claim without disclosure, the court follows a specific process.

In these instances, the court may ask for the information to be shared privately in the judge's chambers, but only with people who are authorized or are okay with being there. If the judge decides the information is indeed privileged, it must remain confidential and cannot be shared without permission.

This rule is about excluding evidence in a legal proceeding when that evidence is protected by a privilege, which means it can't be disclosed without permission. The judge must keep out any privileged information if the person asked to provide the information isn't allowed to claim the privilege, and there's no one else involved in the case who can claim it either. However, if someone who can allow the information to be disclosed says it's okay, or if there's nobody who can claim the privilege, then the judge can let the information be used.

This law states that if someone claims a privilege—like lawyer-client or doctor-patient confidentiality—the communication is presumed to be private. It's the job of the opposing side to prove otherwise. Even if these communications are done electronically, they remain private, and this doesn't change just because others might be able to access them electronically.

This law explains when someone can argue that a court made a mistake by not allowing a claim of privilege. Generally, only the person who holds the privilege can make this argument. However, if the privilege involves a spouse, like refusing to testify against each other, a person can argue for their spouse's privilege even if it's not their own.

This section explains that if privileged information is disclosed even though it shouldn't have been, that information cannot be used against the person who holds the privilege. This can happen if the privilege was claimed correctly, but an error was made, or if the judge wrongly allowed it as evidence. Additionally, just because the person didn't fight the decision or bring it up for review, it doesn't mean they consented; the disclosure is considered forced and doesn't mean they gave up their privilege.

This section makes it clear that the rules outlined here do not override or cancel out any other existing laws about privileges.