There doesn't seem to be anything so far in my links (below), about what the target of the solicitation is responsible for doing or not doing. IMO, it seems as if "criminal solicitation" is a one-way street; the complaint goes to the record and guilt of the importuner; i.e. Lori.
We can't liken it to solicitation of prostitution, as prostitution can indeed nab both the patron and the prostitute under the same charge; because they have equal potential culpability in "who propositioned whom", and this always devolves, as a million cop shows have shown us, into "he said/she said":
Solicitation
Solicitation - FindLaw
Solicitation Charge Explained - criminal
From the latter:
"Solicitation is the act of persuading or soliciting another individual or entity to perform or participate in an activity that is typically criminal, illegal, and unlawful in nature. "
To me, the above definition only encompasses one-way. Unless someone is going to argue in court that
MG was in fact soliciting
Lori to lie about JJ's whereabouts, I don't see how this is a mutual crime, because the above links don't show anything redounding to the solicitee, when they are being asked to commit a crime that they in fact did not wind up committing.
If people are thinking that one quickly-retracted lie qualifies MG on the same criminal level as if she were planning a burglary with Lori or going to be Lori's accomplice, I am afraid they are doomed to be disappointed, because I don't see how anyone can say that MG knew Lori's goal in asking her this question was to hide evidence of a murder.
IANAL myself (though we do have some here); but if someone's going to charge you with being an accomplice to, say, a bank robbery; nothing I've read has said the accomplice can be an unaware dupe of the fact that a robbery is taking place, and still wind up getting charged. Both sides/all parties involved, be they active or passive, have to be knowledgeable of the intent to commit a crime.
