I appreciate that perspective, and I think it is a valid interpretation. But I’m leaning towards the idea that the Sheriff eliminated a witness to something when he killed the judge. And he (the sheriff) can plead the fifth to anything he might be accused of. So, if there is some sort of federal investigation going on, the evidence would be entirely circumstantial. If there is no trial for the killing of the judge, there is limited discovery and no testimony on the record that can facilitate any other investigation. My thought is that the sheriff is banking on being able to save face in some other matter, take his licks for the killing of the judge, and not bankrupt his family.
Eta: all imo