I don't know how WA gets past JL and SY's statements. Putting aside Accessory for a minute, the State will make a very strong case that WA knew before the murder that CA had looked into hiring hitmen to kill DanM. (JL's statement). And the State will make a very strong case that WA knew after the murder that CA may have hired hitmen to kill DanM. (SY's statement).
Also note she phoned SY on the day of SG's arrest and asked her "what if my crazy brother hired a hitman to kill Dan?"
It was never revealed in the press until months later that SG had been hired to kill DanM. It was just stated that a man had been arrested in relation to the shooting of DanM. That was it. How did she know hitmen were involved?
So if WA tries to refute that statement and suggest SY is lying she will just destroy what's left of her credibility. If she admits it, then she's in trouble. And even if she does deny it, the jury will look at the two parallel statements and concur that on the balance of probabilities, WA did indeed make those statements.
Otherwise what's the point in witness testimony if multiple credible witnesses can have their statements summarily dismissed.