The Georgia 2020 Election subversion case (a RICO of the Georgia State variety) is quite complex in that there are 19 defendants who are charged with one or more counts from the list of 41 distinct counts (see page 1 of the Indictment document). For example, all co-defendants were charged with Count 1 (RICO) but Mark Meadows was charged with only one additional count, Count #28: solicitation of violation of oath by public officer in connection with the famous Jan 2 phone call with Raffensperger. Only Donald Trump was charged with Count #28 as well.
My question: using Count #28 as an example (page 87 of the document, arising from Act #112, page 50) which of the following elements can be shared among the co-defendants facing the same count?
In the defense for the co-defendants regarding Count #28 arising from Act #112: if a lawyer for Donald Trump shows how Count #28 cannot be substantiated against him, can the lawyer for Mark Meadows argues that Mr. Meadows should then be automatically acquitted for Count #28 since it's about the same phone call committed in Act #112? Does this being a RICO case, where the prosecutor takes advantage of potential shared guilt among co-defendants (and how one can turn against the other), give a similar advantage for the lawyers for the co-defendants to potentially coordinate a shared defense?
Can the jury deliver a 'guilty' verdict on Count #28 for Donald Trump but 'not guilty' for Mark Meadows?
Let's say the jury delivers a 'guilty' verdict on Count #28 for both Donald Trump and Mark Meadows. Can the sentencing vary between them; for example Mark Meadows got 3 months but Donald Trump got 1 year, due to the relative difference in culpability for Count #28 if it can be shown that Mark Meadows acted under instruction from his boss?