He would not be in any trouble at all, but he is not pleading the 5th. He answered the question on the stand already.
I'm sure Kat will chime in as well, but I didn't want your question to get lost in the thread.
![Smile :) :)]()
It looks like criminal proceedings are completely exempt from this statute--but Judge Strickland entered an order that no photos of the remains could be released, and AFAIK his order is still in effect.
Yes, it should come in under the exclusion for impeaching a witness who is testifying at trial (assuming RK testifies).
I think the evidence of premeditation is the weakest evidence in the case. Technically, even the duct tape is consistent with an accidental death followed by a quick (and slightly insane) cover-up. The chloroform might be enough to get a murder conviction, though.
If the jury thought the death was caused by aggravated child ABUSE (like chloroforming your baby), even if the death was not on purpose she will likely be convicted of felony murder.
Aggravated MANSLAUGHTER of a child is different from aggravated child ABUSE. Aggravated manslaughter of a child is what the jury will pick if they decide that Caylee's death
was Casey's fault somehow, but not because of abuse. This crime does not trigger the felony murder option.