With the GJ potentially meeting Weds, I'm curious the extent to which it can be inferred that is about DA. Waaay outside my wheelhouse of knowledge, but maybe someone who has inside knowledge of the Leon County Cthouse world and/or how crim works on a very practical level can add something.
In terms of DA's culpability, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think her signing the checks is alone enough for reasonable doubt on an accessory after the fact theory. Here's the most relevant part of the FL statute on accessory liability:
Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Fla. Stat. 777.03(a)(1).
First off, accessory liability cannot apply where the aid is given to someone you're in a parent/child relationship with, which means that any evidence that DA aided CA in the commission of the crime would not be admissible. Fortunately, though, the theory would be the the "offender" to whom DA gave "aid" was KM--namely that DA wrote KM checks to compensate her for arranging the murder.
Next up, though, there are two possibly tricky additional elements. One is that the defendant has to aid the offender "knowing they committed a crime." And while I am confident DA actually did know what KM did, proving that might be a harder proposition. Here, the State could enter lots of evidence strongly suggesting that DA knew KM had arranged the murder (e.g., the call to CA after the bump where she says, "It involves both of us"). Plus the fact that KM has confessed to that publicly and it's in the public record, plus that there's no evidence KM was doing any actual work for the Adelson Institute both seem to suggest that DA had to know what was going on.
The trouble with this though is that DA could simply deny it. It would require her throwing CA under the bus, but hell he's already convicted so why not? But then again for that she'd have to take the stand and on direct tell a credible story that even though it's public record that KM arranged DM's murder and that CA arranged it, DA was totally clueless why the payments went to KM. She could say, "Charlie just told me she was doing some odd jobs to help the practice, and he often had me pay contractors, so I trusted him without asking any questions." But that's a hard story to believe, and she would then have to survive a very aggressive cross-examination. So while there is no smoking gun on knowledge, I think GC and her team could convince a jury of this element beyond a reasonable doubt.
What concerns me more is the last and final element, that the aid has to be given with the intention that the offender "escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment." I.e., the classic case of abetting after the fact would be to hide an offender or give them money to flee. That's not what DA did here. The money she paid KM was actually just compensation. Maybe it was to keep KM quiet and happy. But it doesn't appear to be designed to help her "escape detection" or anything else. So I'm concerned that the charge might be a non-starter on this element, especially because it requires a showing of intent, and that is always difficult.
I should add: I'm not a criminal lawyer, so if I'm getting any of the law or analysis wrong, corrections are most welcome. Especially if those corrections can dispel my concern that the final element of abetting doesn't apply in DA's case.