So, I have a question for those with legal expertise and based on discussions after KM’s guilty verdict. Would it behoove CA to turn on his sister now and share any solid evidence he may have that implicates WA, prior to sentencing in December or would he have nothing to gain until after he went through any planned appeals to his conviction?
Any deal with CA that tends to implicate Wendi would be predicated on him testifying, truthfully, at a trial. In his specific case, as things look at present, it looks like its would need to be at least (2) trials, because he can't be truthful at a trial with WA as defendant without being truthful about all of the participation of DA and prosecution is not going to make a deal for part of the story, the PR issues would be caustic in the extreme. So he can roll on both DA and WA....Unless DA is tried before any deal is entertained. And the wild card is....
All this compounded by any culpability HA has....Because the complete story may implicate him in the overall conspiracy or possibly some accessory after the fact type charges; and any corresponding sentence would carry the likelihood that HA dies in prison. In effect, CA can't roll on WA now because he takes the remaining A's down as well; and closes out any appeal of his own conviction.
Should CA appeal his conviction to conclusion: this is going to continue a long time and discounts him from rolling over on anybody, because any tactic he takes to go state's evidence is going to be an admission of his own guilt.
CA might appeal his sentence only, prior to DA's trial: and once he has seen the discovery for DA's trial (and he will, irrespective of any sanctions...) he may perceive she needs to roll the dice and he needs to bide his time...or maybe not.
If DA convicted, CA may very well roll on WA with the provision that HA gets the opportunity to plead to a slap on the wrist. And he would get little discount from his sentence because the prosecution would have enough to get WA in any case?
If DA is not convicted, CA might roll because his testimony against WA would then be of greater value because the evidence that failed to convict DA will largely be the same in trying WA; so CA could demand a greater quid pro quo to fill in the blanks.
If WA gets indicted near term, and CA gets a good look at discovery for both DA and WA: he may perceive his own value to be near-zero. Which will be the adaptation of the prosecution in any proffer negotiations...
The prosecution ups the stakes by indicting WA and combining the trial of DA and WA: CA will wait for all the discovery, meantime dry out some chicken bones and a gourd....
My prediction: CA mounts appeal of his conviction; waits until he can evaluate discovery and any alibi specification in DA's proceedings; then providing he perceives DA as in great risk of being convicted, decides to specify and roll if the benefit is great enough. He will try to incorporate something in his deal to prevent HA from doing jail time.
All MOO and IANAL