Prosecutors said in filings late Monday that all proposed witnesses to FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried should be disqualified from testifying because their disclosure filings are insufficient, their experience may be misleading or their planned testimony may not be relevant. Is.
Bankman-Fried’s team, for its part, wants to exclude a financial analysis expert proposed by the Justice Department because her proposed testimony may not be allowed under the rules. Part of the so-called Daubert motions to be held on Monday, the filing outlines views from both teams on why their opposition should not call some witnesses to the stand when Bankman-Fried is on trial for various fraud and conspiracy charges. A little over a month.
The DOJ rejected all seven expert witnesses proposed by Bankman-Fried’s team, saying that some of the disclosures they filed did not detail their opinions, while others were “inappropriate topics for expert testimony” or Possibly confusing to a potential jury.
The witnesses are Lawrence Akka, a British barrister, Thomas Bishop and Joseph Pimbley, who are from different consulting firms, Brian Kim, a data analytics and forensics expert, Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University Law School, and Andrew Di Vu, a Michigan Assistant Professor in University.
Akka’s testimony should be barred, the DOJ said, because his proposed opinion would address the definition of “trust” under the law, which is the judge’s role. Furthermore, his definition seems to be limited to a single example.
The filing further states that neither Kim nor Bishop’s disclosures shared details about what exactly they would testify about, beyond the general topics that are not allowed.
Prosecutors’ filings said Smith’s testimony was not needed because the DOJ was not bringing a campaign election-specific allegation the professor would have spoken about. Smith should also be banned because, like Akka, his proposed testimony would seek to explain the law to the jury.
The DOJ said that Pimbley’s proposed testimony as an expert who could speak to FTX’s code was “redundant”.
“During the trial, the government will call at least two witnesses – Gary Wang and Nishad Singh – who were involved in writing the code for FTX. They are ordinary witnesses who are able to testify about the Code, and the defendant’s relevant and admissible questions about the Code may be asked of these witnesses during cross-examination,” the DOJ filing states. “There is no need for a separate ‘expert’ witness to testify on such matters, especially in light of the fact that such testimony would duplicate the testimony of fact witnesses.”
The filing states that another proposed witness, Peter Vinella, is being presented as a financial services industry expert but does not have “substantial experience or expertise” in the crypto industry. Wu, the University of Michigan professor, will testify about blockchain and the cryptocurrency industry in general, but that “testimony is not relevant to the issues at issue at trial,” the DOJ said.
The filing states that some of Wu’s planned testimony — for example, detailing common practices around lending in crypto — is “inappropriate.”
Some witnesses disclosed their fees for testifying, saying they were being compensated at an hourly rate for their time and services. Akka is billing GBP 800 per hour (~$1,010 US), Bishop is billing $400 per hour, Kim is billing $650 per hour, Pimbley is charging $720 per hour, Smith 1,200 per hour Dollar and Wu is billing $650 per hour. Vinella’s disclosure stated that his fees were not dependent on the outcome of the case, but did not specify what those fees were.
Peter Easton, a professor of accountancy at the University of Notre Dame, is a proposed witness for the prosecution who should be barred from testifying because he has provided no basis for his testimony and his planned opinion may not be admissible, the defense said. It has its own filing.
“Professor Easton’s multiple ‘opinions’ simply state the government’s allegations, with allegedly no clear expert analysis to assist the jury,” the filing states.
The filing points to proposed testimony addressing FTX’s internal accounting and deposit systems, how FTX funds were allegedly mixed with the Alameda fund, and other details related to the movement of FTX and FTX customers’ money. Were.
“The government should be required to prove its factual narrative by presenting admissible documentary evidence and the testimony of direct witnesses, and not by involving an expert witness who has no direct knowledge of the facts at issue and is not intended to aid the jury’s understanding.” There is no expert analysis,” the filing said.
Easton is engaged to a consulting firm, The Brattle Group, which is charging $1,175 an hour for his testimony.
Ahead of this hearing, defense attorney Christian Everdale filed another letter Monday complaining that the DOJ produced 3.7 million pages of documents Monday, more than another 4 million submitted last Thursday.