Probably not of first degree, no, probably not.
The trial was six weeks long. We've heard about 6 hours of "testimony." The jury, who sat through 6 weeks of trial, deliberated 2 hours. I can't help but think we're being pointed in a direction by our narrator.
Do I think there's enough evidence that he was "in on it" in some way, beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely. And there's another bit of evidence that the jury wouldn't have known about and that Koenig hasn't revealed (yet), but it's available in current court filings and the legitimate news articles about this story that are making the rounds. (No. I won't spoil it here. )