Maybe. Maybe not. LVD's attorneys let virtually all of the evidence, and anything the prosecution chose to say about it, go unchallenged. As a result, they were able to easily weave together a story that looked good to the jury, and that had no other explanation (because the defense didn't give them one to consider). It was neat and easy to follow, because it was the only thing the jury heard.
I suspect this will be a very different trial, with the defense challenging the claims of the prosecution and witnesses, aggressively confronting the witnesses about what they are saying happened, and bringing in experts who will say the state's story has big holes. Lots of confusion, and multiple views to wade through. As I recall, the prosec put their own favored twist on what the Chad-Lori conversations meant, but can they be just as easily painted as plans for chasing lust, rather than murder plans?
Chad didn't do anything in AZ and isn't being charged with any of that, so I doubt that line of "proof" can be used at all in his trial. (I still am not sure why they were allowed to use any of that with Lori either, frankly, since it wasn't in any of the ID charges, but that's a diff topic). I bet there will be a renewed claim that the death of TD was not a murder at all (with an attempt to show that idea was all built on bogus pseudo-science catering to a crime-seeking agenda long afterwards, since the original examiner said it was not murder).
And I expect CD will give the jury someone else to blame, by throwing Lori and/or Alex under the bus as the possible culprits of the kids' death (he doesn't have to prove they were, just has to offer reasonable doubt to the jury of whether he did it), with him having no knowledge that it would happen at all. Remember, she's certifiably crazy, and has arguably left a long trail of bodies in her wake over many years, with Alex her partner in crime, and with those as probably fairly easy-to-prove assertions, it certainly provides Chad someone to point to as who very well might be to blame instead of him.
Whether that will work remains to be seen, but it's potentially a much different circus than the trial we saw in May, and who knows.