Importantly, Crump is not a “court officer” in this trial, so the judge has refused for him to be examined by the defense, even after obviously conspiring with the woman to tamper with the jury.
So the best bet might be a civil suit directed at Crump and the woman, which could be used to force legal discovery on both of them, which might overcome his pretensions of being her legal counsel.
While she might refuse to testify in the lawsuit using the 5th Amendment, which is not usually done, it would expose her as an adult, and make her a public figure, so none of her false evidence could be used by the prosecution.
Since Crump made the statements public, they are not protected as such by the attorney client privilege, so indirect evidence that they are blatant lies could really slap them both.
I’d like to slap the both. LOL!