The motions and objections in the Crypto Six case are starting to fly back-and-forth. Recently, the defense attorneys for me and Aria DiMezzo filed a “Notice of Public Authority Defense“, saying that we had relied on a legal memo from attorney Seth Hipple that cites the New Hampshire Banking Commission stating that they don’t regulate person-to-person cryptocurrency sales. Today, the dishonest federal prosecutors filed an objection to that and a motion to exclude the evidence, arguing that the statements of the NH Banking Commission are irrelevant to the case, since the charges are federal.
Though their primary argument is that the NH Banking Commission’s opinion is irrelevant, they later admit their real fear is the jury might nullify the charges if they knew the actions are legal in New Hampshire:
Alternatively, if the evidence is relevant, it should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, because its introduction would be unduly prejudicial to the government and invite jury nullification.
Jury Nullification is your right to judge the law itself, instead of the facts in the case. Nullification is an established right of jurors that governments across the United States, especially in federal courts, attempt to suppress. It’s no surprise that the prosecutors are worried about it here, as Aria and I certainly did no harm to any other soul and a jury who knows they are free to use their conscience to render a verdict, may very well throw out the entire case.
The next step in the trial is Thursday September 1st at 10am in federal court church in Concord, where multiple motions will get hearings, including a motion to dismiss the “money transmitter” charges and a very interesting motion arguing the government should be prevented from introducing blockchain analysis expert testimony as their methods cannot pass the scrutiny required to be admitted as evidence in a case.