but does not JA have the biggest incentive to lie....i believe at minimum his "consideration" is dp off the table...that is pretty good incentive.
Yes, of course he does but it really doesn't matter what his motive may have been for testifying. What does matter is his testimony lined up with all of the other witnesses who testified afterwards. Yes, some were those who were in jail with ZA after his arrest, but some were his lifelong friends.
The jury is not going to believe every witness testifying against ZA is lying and that is what they would have to believe to vote NG.
In fact in the Rabbi Neulander case the two hit men who actually murdered his wife for him were given plea deals of 20 years to testify against him.
Here JA only has federal immunity and is hoping for a lighter sentence in the state's case. He has more on the line to lose by testifying than the two hit men did who already had their plea deals. The best he can hope for is for the DP to be taken off the table. Everyone of them were acting in concert with each other even though ZA was the one who shot Holly. They were all in the commission of committing felonies making them all guilty under the law. The entire time from the moment she was kidnapped she was being held against her will by all involved. Even JA knew she was still alive and did nothing but be a lookout for ZA so he will do hard time too.