Share this article
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a motion against Sam Bankman-Fried, the infamous former CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX. If approved, this move would dismiss the testimonies of all seven expert witnesses prepared for his defense:
“The proposed experts would offer legal conclusions that invade the purview of the Court and the jury, or serve no other purpose than to provide an expert patina to inadmissible hearsay testimony about the defendant’s supposed lack of criminal knowledge or intent.”
Central to this motion is the allegation that Bankman-Fried unlawfully shared private documents pertaining to Caroline Ellison, previously both a business associate and romantic partner. These confidential documents, subsequently spotlighted in a New York Times article, depicted Ellison’s tenure at Alameda Research, illuminating her professional trials and personal tribulations, and “have the potential to taint the jury pool.”
The DOJ challenges the proposed witnesses based on identified “deficiencies” in their testimonial disclosures. The motion asserts that several of these disclosures do not meet the standards set by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. The DOJ also raises concerns that some opinions might mislead or unduly influence the jury, and the courts have the power to fix that:
“Districts courts play a ‘gatekeeping role’ to ‘ensur[e] that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’”
The seven expert witnesses – Lawrence Akka, Thomas Bishop, Brian Kim, Joseph Pimbley, Bradley Smith, Peter Vinella, and Andrew Di Wu – are respected figures in the legal community. Their potential absence from the proceedings could recalibrate the defense strategy.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams has voiced apprehensions regarding the
Go to Source to See Full Article
Author: Emily Tonelli