Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

According to Cheney Mason, KC was not allowed to cut her hair (or have it cut) while in prison. Could you tell me the reason for this? txs

 

Because of double jeopardy.

Do you have a link for this?

 

I sawthis during his interview with Jean Carsas on HLN.

 

I wish the USA DID have a law like that. Anyhow, here is my legal question:

Is there any way Casey's lawyers can weasel her out of having to give a depo on the 19th??

 

Oops, sorry..had to edit..this is the verified atty. thread.

 

I looked at the videos of him on the CNN site but didn't hear this comment. Anyway, it makes no sense to me that she wasn't allowed to get a haircut the whole time she was in jail.

They could ask to postpone it until after any appeal of the 4 lying to LE convictions, on the ground that she will have to take the 5th on any questions relating to those convictions (which would be all the interesting questions).

 

Thank you, AZ.

 

Out of curiosity does 5th Amendment privilege fall away entirely after an acquittal? The answers may still incriminate her even although the state would be barred from bringing charges in relation those matters.

 

Just a heads up AZ, I think one of her jailhouse letters stated that she was not going to cut her hair until she got released.

Oh my, if she got convicted....

 

I heard this from Cheney's mouth during his interview with Jean Carsas on HLN, then latter JVM was talking about it with Mike Galanos and she said she had never seen a male prisoner with hair that long. What's up, anyone?

Can a prison really make those restrications? Whoud Cheney Mason lie?

 

Asking out of ignorance; Florida Law permits jurors in civil and criminal cases to ask questions during trials. Does the law require that the defendant be called to testify before this option is available? Did this option ever come up @ trial?

 

Yes.

No, this rule has nothing to do with whether the defendant testifies. The jury had this option, but I'm not too sure that HHJP shared that information with them.

 

I apologize if this has been asked before, but if the jury had a question about a witness' testimony during deliberations and wanted it read back to them for clarity, would the judge have allowed this?

 

The jury was allowed to ask, but HHJP was not required to agree. IMO most likely he would have allowed it, though.

 

hopefully I correctly quoted both above.

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I don't understand how jury misconduct would not nullify their verdict? thereby removing double jeopardy.

I know the Caylee law is a great avenue to pursue but I feel it doesn't quite address the issue surrounding what the Jury have so far disclosed. Is there any legal way that an investigation of their conduct be done? And if not. Perhaps that would be another good petition which would make changes so that there is an avenue of investigation, nullifying their verdict & double jeopardy and retrial to occur.

I'm extremely upset that I'm hearing this is the way it works and the system worked. Thats just ignoring another elephant in the room and leads to no changes. Like everything else, if we don't admit what isn't working we can't improve it. To me the Justice system is not static. What are your thoughts?

I really appreciate your sharing all your legal knowledge!

 

Double jeopardy means (simplified) that you can't be tried twice for the same offense. So if you are acquitted you can't be retried. The fact that your jurors committed misconduct can't deprive you of your constitutional rights.

If you are convicted, presumably you are ASKING to be retried so that's OK.

I don't think the double jeopardy rule will be set aside in the US any time soon.

 

I read an article that stated that JB filed a motion early in the trial for costs of the defense team. If KC was declared indigent why would the court pay for JB and counsel opposed to State appointed attorneys? Wouldn't this have been less expensive? Was JB asking for all the costs of the necessities of their investigation of the trial plus or minus what the attorneys required as a salary?

 

I apologize, but I'm kind of confused on this. Does this mean that she can plead the 5th during this depo...and if so, why did Morgan set up this date? He must surely know he won't get any answers.

Thank you so much for sharing your time and knowledge to help us get through this.

 

The state did not pay for her counsel, only for her costs.

Possibly Morgan didn't think of the possibility that she would appeal. I know I didn't. No one appeals misdemeanor convictions on which the defendant basically got out for time served.