Not necessarily. In some cases, prosecutors will allow a defendant to plead to a lesser charge because simply it saves time and money. Trials are expensive and prosecutor time is valuable so sometime they just take the win on a lesser charge to put the trial to bed. In this case, there is no further comment from anyone about the details of the plea. This suggests that Pellegrino pleaded guilty to the lesser charge, said she was sorry, and the court let her off with something that isn’t even a slap on the wrist.

Jenna Ellis also took a plea deal in this case. However, in the reporting on that deal, it specifically says that she will cooperate with the prosecution.

In exchange for dropping nine felony counts against her, Ellis agreed to “provide truthful information” to the Attorney General’s Office and “testify completely and truthfully” in the case, per the terms of Ellis’ cooperation agreement with the AG’s Office.

All they are saying about Pellegrino is that there is no further comment on the plea in this article. Axios has slightly more. They say she’s getting three years unsupervised probation (The Guardian article left out the length of the sentence) and adds this:

The attorney general’s office wouldn’t comment on whether Pellegrino will be required to testify or cooperate with the prosecution, saying the court has sealed the plea agreement.

Why would they seal this plea agreement but not the Ellis agreement where she is required to fully cooperate? Why is Pellegrino getting such a sweetheart deal?