IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt, but my guess is that any competent defense lawyer would have no trouble quashing that. As I understand it, mens rea, a guilty mind is not enough. Prosecutors must also prove actus rea, guilty actions, even if it was merely preparing to commit a crime. Since casting spells is not a crime, I don’t think preparing to cast spells counts as actus rea.
ETA: That said, it occurs to me that since the defendant is accused of running a Ponzi scheme, prosecutors might use the physical evidence of her spell casting to help prove a guilty mind with regards to the fraud charges. Not a fan of investment fraudsters, but I do find it troubling that it might be possible use religious paraphernalia as evidence, particularly since no one is going to submit a rosary as evidence of a Catholic committing a crime. While superstition of any kind is absurd, government exercising favor of one over another is a very real danger not only to freedom of religion, but also, for atheists, freedom from religion.
