I think some things could be learned from the Navin/Valiente case, which of course has been brought up here in the past.
Read this article below with MTs name in place of Valiente, and FD in place of Navin.
Girlfriend connected to killing of boyfriend’s parents accepts 8 year plea deal
Look closely at how the plea deal was handled and the Alford plea, and what NP argues is required for conspiracy.
And the importance that part of the deal is that she never cooperated with the state or agreed to testify, because that could implicate her and void the plea deal.
It took 2 years of her sitting in jail to get to a deal, which still gave her 16 years combined for conspiracy and tampering, released after 8.
I am sure MT is holding out for something much better. In this case they had more than enough to convict Navin, so they didn’t need Valiente.
And here, MT is just sporting a new jewelry trend around her ankle, not behind bars.
While this case may run a little differently, I think there are useful insights here as to how NP works, and what MT might be hoping for in terms of a squirmy escape. Of course NPs on the other side now (or is he).
Pattis noted "the law of conspiracy requires you to enter into an agreement with another to do something wrong. There was no agreement."
But, both he and Valiante, 33, admitted to the judge that a jury might have found that there was indeed an agreement "based on text messages and the hostility between the parents and the son and based on her cleanup efforts afterwards," Pattis said.
So, he advised his client to avoid the risk of a 10 year maximum sentence on the hindering charge by accepting the eight-year offer. The total effective sentence: 16 years, which will be suspended after eight years.
Valiante is not not due to be sentenced until January 26, which is after it's expected Navin's case will be resolved.
"The reason I believe for that is they want to make sure she doesn't testify," said Pattis. "Until she is sentenced, there's no judgment in this case and no lawyer would permit her to testify."
Pattis explained that's because if her testimony implicated her, perhaps the judge would withdraw her plea deal.