Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyers are unhappy about the 7.7 million pages of information provided by the government as part of the legal process.
The discussions between Bankman-Fried’s legal team and the Department of Justice continue, leading up to a virtual hearing on August 30.
The US government’s lawyers submitted a letter on Tuesday to the Court in response to multiple letters from Bankman-Fried’s lawyers regarding the discovery process.
The defendants are arguing that certain evidence from the government should not be considered in the upcoming trial, which is scheduled to start on October 3.
A court order on Monday confirmed that a virtual hearing about these letters and the defense’s request is set for Wednesday.
However, the government contends that Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of FTX, has expressed concerns about the sheer amount of information provided. The government’s lawyers stated that they had recently produced around eight million documents. In letters dated August 25 and August 28, the defendants pointed out four million pages and 3.7 million pages respectively.
Government Critiques Expert Testimonies in Bankman-Fried Case
The government has raised concerns about the information presented by Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal team, stating that the details provided are twisted and misleading. They clarify that the extensive discovery material – totaling millions of pages – was sourced from the defendant’s Google accounts. A delay occurred due to a Google-related issue. Nonetheless, they maintain that the discovery was identified before the cutoff date in July.
Despite these objections, there is no evidence that the government’s findings violate Rule 16, a guideline ensuring the government reveals certain evidence intended for trial.
Furthermore, the government opposes seven expert witnesses and has requested their testimonies be excluded. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), there are issues with the proposed experts and their disclosures, leading to their request for preclusion.
For instance, one of the potential testimonies was planned by an English barrister, Lawrence Akka, who aimed to discuss FTX’s terms of service and its effect on relationships. The government finds this interpretation unsuitable for trial.
Likewise, the testimony from Professor Bradley Smith, who would address federal election laws, is being contested by the attorneys.
The testimony of consultant Peter Vinella is also being questioned due to his purported lack of expertise. Among the seven potential testimonies, four are from leaders of different consulting firms.
Government Objects to Consultant’s Testimony in Bankman-Fried Case
The government has raised objections to the testimony of consultant Joseph Pimbley in relation to FTX’s coding. They argue that his testimony is unnecessary since the DOJ plans to call Gary Wang and Nishad Singh to testify. Both Wang and Singh have experience with FTX’s code and have worked at the company.
The government has requested the court to use its authority to prevent such expert testimony that they view as impermissible.
Aside from this ongoing discussion, Bankman-Fried’s legal team has filed an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. They claim that Bankman-Fried was exercising his First Amendment rights when he shared writings from Caroline Ellison, a former leader of Alameda Research, with the New York Times. Bankman-Fried and Ellison were previously romantically involved.
Earlier, on August 11, a judge revoked Bankman-Fried’s bail, citing probable cause for witness tampering.
Important: Please note that this article is only meant to provide information and should not be taken as legal, tax, investment, financial, or any other type of advice.
Join Cryptos Headlines Community
Follow Cryptos Headlines on Google News
