The defense team requested that one of the witnesses proposed by the impeachment team be barred from testifying as well. All expert witnesses recommended by FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried should be barred from testifying, as stated in a late Monday filing by prosecutors because their descriptions were inadequate, their experience might be misleading, or their planned testimony might not be relevant. Bankman-Fried’s team wants to exclude a financial analyst recommended by the Justice Department because his proposed statement allegedly might not be allowed under the rules. These statements, which are part of the so-called Daubert filings that ended on Monday, set out the views of both teams that the opposing party should not call certain witnesses at the trial, while Bankman-Fried was on trial on charges of fraud and conspiracy in more than a month. The DOJ is looking to purchase all seven expert witnesses suggested by Bankman-Fried’s team at discounted prices, and said some of her statements didn’t detail her views, while others were “unsuitable for expert testimony topics” or could be confusing to a potential jury. Witnesses include Lawrence Akka, Thomas Bishop and Joseph Pimbley, who are at different consulting firms; data analytics and reviews expert Brian Kim; Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University Law School, and Andrew Di Wu, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan. The DOJ stated that Akka’s testimony should be blocked as it would appeal to the definition of “trust”, the role of the court judge. Also, its definition seemed limited to a single example, he added. Kim’s or Bishop’s statements don’t include details about what they’re really going to testify about beyond general topics, which is a disallowed situation, the reference added. Smith’s statement is not needed because the DOJ does not bring charges related to campaign finance, the professor would talk about it, the prosecutors’ statement said. Smith, like Akka, should also be thwarted for his proposed testimony trying to explain the law to the jury. The DOJ stated that Pimbley’s statement, recommended as an expert who can talk about the FTX code, was “redundant.” “At the hearing, the Government would call at least two witnesses – Gary Wang and Nishad Singh – who were involved in the process of writing the FTX code. They are non-expert witnesses who are qualified to testify about the code, and the relevant and acceptable questions the defendant asked about the code were those during the cross-examination. may be referred to witnesses,” said the DOJ application. “There is no need for a separate ‘expert’ witness in such matters, especially in light of such testimony that would actually repeat the testimony of actual witnesses.” Another suggested witness, Peter Vinella, who is presented as a financial services industry expert, doesn’t seem to have “sufficient experience or expertise” in the crypto industry, the application said. Wu would similarly make a general statement about blockchains and the cryptocurrency industry, but that statement is not related to the controversial issues at the hearing, according to the DOJ. Some of Wu’s planned statement — detailing common practices around lending in cryptocurrency, for example — was “not appropriate,” the reference added. Some witnesses disclosed testimony fees for time and services. According to the watch, Akka charges £800 ($1,010), Bishop $400, Kim $650, Pimbley $720, Smith $1,200 and Wu $650. Vinella’s statement states that her fees are not tied to concluding the case, but these fees are not specified. University of Notre Dame accounting professor Peter Easton is presented as a proposed witness who should be barred from testifying because he did not provide a basis for his testimony and his planned opinions may not have been permissible, the defense team stated in its application. “Many of Professor Easton’s ‘opinions’ describe the Government’s arguments without ostensibly expert analysis to aid the jury’s understanding,” the application said. The statement cited suggested testimony that addressed FTX’s internal accounting and deposit system, the alleged mixing of FTX funds with Alameda funds, and other details linked to the movement of FTX and client funds.