I've been banging on for ages about DA making a deal or WA or CA, one of them flipping. I was convinced of it. I now think there is zero chance of any of them cooperating with the State and admitting to even a minor level of complicity. They will maintain their innocence to their last breath. It doesn't make sense, but then they don't. Every time I think I've got them figured out, something happens to prove me wrong. They're twisted and broken. They seem to have love and loyalty and kindness, but paradoxically are filled with anger, hate, bitterness. You can't have both.
A cynical take is that in my opinion it is possible W could now be less worried about imminent arrest. Realistically in my opinion it could take at least a year for Donna to select another lawyer and get him up to speed, and then there is the matter of finding a trial date that works for everyone, and then of course, there are often continuances. Whether true or not, many legal experts I’ve seen seem to be of the opinion that W will not be arrested until Donna is tried because she is needed to testify and there may be fifth amendment considerations which will arise if she has been indicted when she is called to testify. (She can, and has, received limited immunity, but the rules may be different for people who have been indicted, they may be entitled to assert their privilege as to all questions, regardless of any immunity the state may be prepared to offer). W is a lawyer, and she has a very good lawyer from what I understand, so it’s possible in my opinion that she would know all of this.
In my opinion it is possible that Charlie, with the benefit of his conflict-free appellate attorney, might think he has a good chance of prevailing on the post-conviction issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. In my opinion it is possible this may motivate him, and his appellate lawyer, to seek a deal because they view themselves as being in a favorable position over the state. However, in my opinion it’s possible they may wish to proceed with their initial appeal first. (Ineffective assistance, in my understanding, is a claim for “post conviction” relief and cannot be argued in the first direct appeal, so Charlie, in my understanding, would have to pursue the direct appeal and lose on that first before he could raise the ineffective assistance issue.). In my opinion, it’s possible that after the direct appeal is completed, Charlie may be in a better position, in my opinion, to deal with the state because he can now bring a potential ineffective assistance claim which he stands a decent chance of winning (just my opinion). Again, W is a lawyer and has a good lawyer and it is possible she would know all of this, in my opinion.
Donna, assuming she would be willing to turn on her own daughter, might be interested in making a deal. In my opinion the state may have a significant interest in sparing themselves the time and expense of another trial, and thus she might be in an advantageous position at this point. This is something that, in my opinion, Charlie, W, and their lawyers might be aware if, and if so it might affect their own willingness to make a deal before Donna does, despite all the cynical factors I mentioned above which might cut against that.
All in all, in my opinion this thing with Rash and thrown a giant monkey wrench in this case, and it may be a long time before we see anything else happen.