Surprised that KM is testifying; defendants rarely do. But it's an individual decision regardless of advice of counsel. And it's also not a terrible strategy based on all the evidence so far. The one smoking gun the prosecution is Rivera, and he did not implicate KM nearly as strongly as SG. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence against her, but none of it is really that conclusive. The cash deposits in 2014/15 look suspicious but they are not direct evidence and much as I hate to admit it they're pretty tenuous proof of guilt.
I say this as someone who believes she is factually guilty and very much wants the jury to return that verdict. But perhaps because I'm pessimistic about legal process and acutely conscious of how hard it is to prove guilt beyond a RD, I'm not sure it's a terrible idea for her to just get up there and basically say [falsely] "I didn't do this, here's the real story, and no comment about SG." That way a jury can split the difference, giving her leniency and throwing the book at SG.
That said, a LOT is going to depend on cross-examination. If the state can make KM look bad, untrustworthy, impeachable, etc. then they can score points and her gamble will not have paid off. Rooting for Cappleman et al. to have a good day.
