SBF trial takes an interesting turn as expert witness battle heats up

• The Division of Justice has sought to bar one of many prosecution’s proposed witnesses.
• The authorized maneuvering intensified because the trial date approaches.

Prosecutors have asserted that each one of Sam Bankman-Fried’s (SBF) proposed professional witnesses needs to be disqualified from testifying in his upcoming trial. They cited inadequate disclosure filings, deceptive expertise, or irrelevant deliberate testimony. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has additionally sought to bar one of many prosecution’s proposed witnesses.

This has created a conflict over the admissibility of witnesses’ testimonies. The authorized maneuvering emerged within the context of Bankman-Fried going through fraud and conspiracy prices. His protection group and the DOJ offered their arguments on witness testimony in not too long ago filed Daubert motions.

The DOJ has taken a agency stance against the witnesses put forth by SBF’s protection group. They declare the disclosure filings are insufficient, some opinions lack readability, and sure testimony could confuse the jury.

The seven professional witnesses embody Lawrence Akka, a British barrister; Thomas Bishop and Joseph Pimbley, affiliated with totally different consulting companies; Brian Kim, an information analytics and forensics professional; Bradley Smith, a legislation professor at Capital College Regulation College; and Andrew Di Wu, an assistant professor on the College of Michigan.

Prosecution and Protection conflict over testimony admissibility

Prosecutors have particularly focused Akka’s testimony, contending that his opinion on the authorized definition of a “belief” is extra appropriately reserved for a choose’s dedication. They’ve additionally expressed issues in regards to the breadth of his definition.

Moreover, the DOJ has criticized each Kim and Bishop for his or her lack of specificity in disclosure, which may doubtlessly violate the foundations. The DOJ has deemed Smith’s testimony pointless as a result of there is no such thing as a marketing campaign finance-specific cost within the case.

Pimbley, designated as an professional on FTX‘s code, confronted the assertion that his testimony was superfluous. The DOJ asserted that truth witnesses, Gary Wang and Nishad Singh, possessed the required {qualifications} to testify in regards to the code, making Pimbley’s testimony redundant.

Equally, the DOJ deemed Andrew Di Wu’s common experience on blockchains and the cryptocurrency business as irrelevant.

Moreover, the DOJ raised issues in regards to the relevance of a few of Wu’s deliberate testimony. Specifically, his insights on widespread lending practices within the crypto sphere have been raised. The prosecutors indicated that such testimony could be improper for the trial.

The disclosure of witnesses’ compensation was additionally disclosed. Akka, Bishop, Kim, Pimbley, Smith, and Wu have been charging charges starting from $400 to $1,200 per hour. Peter Vinella, one other proposed witness, outlined that his charges weren’t contingent on the trial’s consequence. Nevertheless, the precise quantity remained undisclosed.

The protection group, in response, has referred to as for the exclusion of Peter Easton, a proposed prosecution witness, as a result of inadequate foundation for his testimony and questionable relevance. They accuse Easton, an accountancy professor on the College of Notre Dame, of providing opinions that merely reiterate the federal government’s allegations with out analytical depth.

The dispute over witnesses’ admissibility has intensified because the trial approaches. Each authorized groups have a scheduled digital assembly to debate varied motions. These embody SBF’s potential launch from jail to organize his protection, limitations on using post-July 1 discovery materials, and particulars regarding his “advice-of-counsel” protection.

Protection lawyer Christian Everdell lodged a criticism in regards to the immense quantity of paperwork produced by the DOJ. He highlighted the substantial challenges posed by the big amount of fabric. The case’s complexities proceed to unfold as authorized arguments form the course of Bankman-Fried’s trial.