U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors object to SBF lawyers' cross-examination of witnesses

Odaily Planet Daily News The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor objected to SBF’s lawyers’ cross-examination of witnesses. Prosecutors asked Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to deny the defendants' motion to cross-examine witnesses including Caroline Ellison and deny SBF's request for the court to reconsider its previous ruling. Prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to Judge Kaplan objecting to the defense's request to cross-examine witnesses. The plaintiff believed that the defendant's claim was worthless and a waste of judicial resources, and the defendant's claim should be dismissed. Prosecutors claimed that defendants' arguments regarding the wire fraud theory were incorrect and were correct in seeking investor testimony regarding their understanding of defendants' statements. Additionally, DOJ prosecutors have no objection to cross-examination by the SBF defense team, but they want to ask witnesses about issues such as FTX’s terms of service. On October 10, Judge Kaplan rejected a request by SBF lawyers to cross-examine FTX co-founder Gary Wang on whether he relied on legal advice when agreeing to a series of loans linked to hedge fund Alameda Research. Lawyers for SBF sent a letter to Judge Kaplan on October 12, seeking to cross-examine every witness following the testimony of former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison. DOJ prosecutors believe the motion should be dismissed. (CoinGape) Previously, in a document filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 12, SBF’s legal team sought to present certain information from FTX’s terms of service during the testimony of prosecution witnesses in a motion intended to resolve the ongoing criminal trial. "Certain Evidence Issues" in . The issue involves prosecutors and defense’s differing accounts of the alleged misuse of FTX funds. Lawyers for SBF said prosecutors intend to call witnesses and determine their “understanding and expectations” about how their deposits at FTX were used. The defense attorney claimed that regardless of a user’s understanding of FTX’s terms of service, “compliance with these terms is a defense to the crime charged.” "The defense's position is that the rights and obligations of the parties to the business relationship are not determined by the anticipation and understanding of the federal statute of frauds under the misappropriation theory," the filing said. Additionally, the attorneys asked the court to allow them to question the prosecution under FTX's terms of service. witnesses, and excludes the testimony of “lay witnesses.”