Ira Kleiman Attorneys Beg Court for New Trial Following Landmark Bitcoin Case

Written by:
Aaron Goldstein
Published on:

Following a multi-billion dollar defeat in a Miami courtroom last month, Ira Kleiman's attorneys have filed a motion for a new trial.

In the filing, Ira’s attorneys complain that the defendants violated an earlier court order during the trial which prohibited them from introducing evidence as to the relationship between Ira and his late brother.

The defendants were none other than Dr. Craig Wright and his organization.  The jury found in his favor and, in doing do, determined Wright to be among those responsible for creation of the original Bitcoin White Paper.

Jordan Atkins of CoinGeek writes:

"They point to ‘at least 10’ instances where the defence allegedly violated the court order during trial. As evidence of the effect the violations had on trial, the motion also cites an interview with one of the jurors published by Law360 after the end of the trial in which the juror says that he did not warm to Ira Kleiman during trial in part due to his failure to visit his dying brother."

The odds of a court granting a retrial in this case are slim to none. 

A sampling of court cases by the National Center for State Courts found that of the cases that went to trial, 6 percent ended in hung juries and 4 percent were declared mistrials for other reasons. In most situations, cases that end in mistrial can be tried again.  There was no mistrial here.   Ultimately the jury arrived at a verdict.

Other criteria for determining a new trial outside of a hung jury or mistrial can include proof that the conduct complained of gravely impaired the ability of the jury to dispassionately consider the case.

Should it occur, the shape a retrial might take can also vary between a complete do-over including the re-opening of discovery or be strictly limited to the ground covered in the first trial.

- Aaron Goldstein,

Business/Financial News

UK Rejects Proposal to Regulate Crypto Like Gambling

"A system of gambling regulation, in isolation, would be unlikely to address these risk factors. It would also not be equipped to deal with insider dealing, market manipulation, predatory short selling and many other behaviours which can manifest themselves in both cryptoasset markets as well as traditional financial services markets."