All the witnesses presented by the founder of FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, should not be allowed to testify because their disclosure fillings are insufficient. The experiences of witnesses would be misguiding, or their planned testimony may be irrelevant, said a prosecutor in a Monday filing.
The Department of Justice proposed a financial analysis expert for the testimony, but the team of the Bankaman-Fired wants to exclude him as they think his proposed testimony might not be allowed under the rules.
The fillings, which were part of the so-called Daubert motions due Monday, laid out the arguments of both teams for why their opposition should not be allowed to call particular witnesses to stand when Bankman-Fried goes on trial for various fraud and conspiracy-related charges in a little over a month.
All seven expert witnesses, proposed by SBF’s team, are moved to discount by the DOJ. They say that some of “the disclosures fail at the most basic level to set forth the opinions of the expert,” and others “are inappropriate subjects for expert testimony” or may confuse the potential jury.
Seven proposed witnesses are Lawrence Akka, a British barrister; Thomas Bishop and Joseph Pimbley, who are with different consulting firms: Brian Kim, a data analytics and forensics expert; Bradley Smith, a professor at Capital University Law School; Peter Vinella, managing director at consulting firm PVA Toucan International; and Andrew Di Wu, assistant professor at University of Michigan.
The testimony of Akka should be barred as his suggested opinion would touch on the legal definition of “trust.” In disclosures of both, Kim and Bishop have not shared any specifics about general topics they would testify about, which is against the law.
Smith’s testimony is unnecessary because the DOJ is not filing a charge specifically related to finance of a campaign election and Pimbley’s proposed testimony as an expert who can speak to FTX’s code is “unnecessary,” according to the DOJ.
“At trial, the Government will call at least two witnesses – Gary Wang and Nishad Singh – who were involved in writing FTX’s code.” the DOJ filing said. “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.”
Peter Vinella is presented as a financial services industry expert, but “he lacks sufficient experience or expertise,” as per the filling. Wu’s “testimony is not relevant to the contested issues at trial.” Filling also said, “Many of Professor Easton’s ‘opinions’ simply narrate the Government’s allegations with no apparent expert analysis to purportedly assist the jury.”
Also Read: SBF Intends to Shift the Blame on Past Lawyers in October Trial
