Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 386

摘要

Defense Letter · Opposition to Government's Motion to Preclude

This eight-page filing, dated July 1, 2024 from Sidhardha Kamaraju of Pryor Cashman LLP, responds to the government's June 30, 2024 letter (Dkt. 385, case-doc-385) seeking to preclude or limit defense witness testimony in United States v. Guo, 1:23-cr-00118 (AT).

Defense's Threshold Position

The letter opens with the defense's recurring trial-record theme: the Court has repeatedly reminded the government that Mr. Guo is entitled to mount a defense, citing transcript references including:

• Tr. 1634:14-15: "Here's my ruling. Mr. Guo needs the opportunity to assert a defense";
• Tr. 2702:6-7: "They're entitled to a defense. I'm going to let it in."

The defense argues that the government's latest letter shows it "has not yet received the message" and asks the Court to deny the government's motion in its entirety.

Specific Arguments

The defense responds to each of the government's five preclusion targets (developed at case-doc-385):

1. "Non-victim" investor witnesses: The defense argues investors testifying they do not consider themselves victims is highly probative of materiality and the defendant's intent;
2. Defense Witness-1: The defense argues the witness's testimony is relevant and not unduly prejudicial;
3. George Higginbotham testimony: The defense argues the witness can testify within the bounds of personal knowledge, not as a hearsay conduit;
4. Defense experts opining on other witnesses: The defense argues the experts are testifying within the proper scope of expert opinion;
5. Himalaya Exchange redemptions: The defense argues evidence of redemptions paid by HEX is directly relevant to materiality and intent.