Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnordfnordfnord | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I can agree that the judge was being entirely reasonable or fair. On the one hand, the defense wasn't allowed to use people like Andreas Antonopoulos as an expert because he lacks bona-fides and has no published academic papers on Bitcoin; and on the other hand the defense wasn't allowed to question the FBI's very own bona-fide computer scientist to establish simple factual details about computer operating systems. Of course everything is all by the rules, but it's a bit rich to expect there to be a large body of work in academia about a recently invented technology (Bitcoin). It could be true that the defense could have executed their case differently/better, but it may also be that their hands were tied and all they had to work with was Chewbacca. In which case, appeal incoming.

View on HN

No, that's not what happened. The problem isn't simply that Antonopolous lacked credentials; it's that they disclosed him as a witness at the 11th hour without giving the court time to vet him. If you read the ruling, Steve Bellovin was also rejected, despite the judge's repeated acknowledgement of his outstanding credentials. In both cases, the defense was also unable or unwilling to describe what their expert witnesses would testify to, which they are required to do, just as the prosecution was required to do the same for their witnesses, to allow the opposing side time to prepare.

It's apparent to me this court is not interested in the truth!

On the contrary, it's very interested in the truth. When you want to present an expert witness, you include in the paperwork what truth they're going to tell the court, and their evidence for it.

The trial is a show for the jurors to convey information to them - everything that's going to be said NEEDS to be conveyed to the opposing side in advance, so they can prepare responses.

Surprise witnesses that blow cases wide open are only on TV.

That's all artificial. You don't throw out facts, hide your head in the sand, if you are seeking truth.

You also don't refuse to tell the judge what your expert will testify about if you want your witness to have their change to tell the truth.

> that they disclosed him as a witness at the 11th hour

Yeah, that bit makes me suspect it was a deliberate strategy.

I'm not 100% sure on the timetables, but one reason for it could be that defense's counsel was getting sustained objections for cross-examining outside of scope. In essence, defense was trying to use a government witness as their own witness to prove other points.

The judge didn't allow this, but the defense said that they had been able to use opposing witnesses in this manner before. So, while it may have been a dumb idea in the first place, the logic may have been that they didn't think they would need a witness until that surprise.

In the filing introducing the two witnesses, the defense failed to concretely specify what they'd be testifying about. A late-game strategic switch to using their own experts is one thing; being coy about what those witnesses would testify is another.

Oh yeah, that's true. Well, consider me convinced that it was appeal fodder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com