I'm very curious what CA's defense will be. Under the law, of course, the burden to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is entirely on the state, and CA has no obligation to present any defense whatsoever. The defense can remain totally silent, or it can just try to poke holes in the state's case. In practice, however, defendants usually try to present the jury with some plausible alternative theory to that presented by the state -- one that convinces the jury that the defendant didn't do it.
Assuming CA's defense does want to present some plausible theory of his innocence, they have to contend with what's probably incontrovertible at this point: two thugs who had never met DM drove all the way from Miami to Tallahassee to murder him. They didn't rob him or try to do a drug deal with him--they just killed him. And those two thugs had a connection to the Adelsons via one of their SO's (KM). Given those facts, what can CA argue? A few possibilities (none very plausible to me):
1. CA has absolutely no idea why any of this happened. Just zero connection to any of the plot. If his GF KM was indeed involved, she did it entirely on her own, perhaps in a misguided attempt to please CA, and without telling CA of her involvement.
2. CA was somehow blackmailed/extorted/coerced/threatened by SG/KM/LR into a conspiracy to kill DM.
3. CA was involved in the plot, but the plan was just to warn/intimidate/rough up DM, not murder him.
4. Some combination of DA, WA, and HA were behind the plot, and communicated directly with KM, but CA wasn't involved.
Again, I don't think any of those possible defenses is plausible, and there is tons of evidence contradicting all of them. But what other potential defenses does he have? Perhaps Mr. Rashbaum will enlighten us tomorrow. Until then, speculate away...
