I hate to say it, but I think that the chance of convicting CA or DA is lower today than before the trial. Before the trial, there was the chance that KM would flip and give testimony directly implicating SG and CA (and possibly DA). Today, the state no longer needs her to get SG. And during the trial, KM testified under oath that she: 1) had nothing to do with any murder plot; and 2) never conspired with CA to murder DM.
Now that she's told that story under oath, can the the state really put her on the stand at a future trial to swear exactly the opposite? I'd be interested in hearing from the attorneys in this forum with criminal experience whether they think that KM now has value to the state as a witness given her trial testimony. Of course, if she testified at a future trial that she did conspire with CA, the defense would have a field day pointing out that she was admitting that she committed perjury at the first trial.