They are trying to leave no stone untouched. If the interviews are looked into and it is determined that they contain exculpatory evidence then they will win the appeal. The upon information and belief is to protect the attorney from committing perjury.
The issue is, it's not exculpatory simply because it wasn't turned over. If defense knew of these people, it could have interviewed them. Simply there existing interviews made by the government of witnesses who did not testify does make them Brady.
He fingered Mark - the guy from gox. This happened during the trial, and the defense could argue that the government should have known this information prior to it starting.
I get that. That should have come through Jencks disclosures, and I expect it did.
I would disagree on this one. They may have been surviving third party property overall, however the information being intercepted was communications between Ross's property and others.
Your argument is like saying that if the government were to hack into Verizon without a search warrant and monitor my phone communications that I would not have standing to sue under the 4th amendment because they hacked into a third party's property to illegally do surveillance on my phone line.[/quote]
That doesn't matter at all. If person A writes a letter to person B, who gives it to person C, A has no standing to suppress a warrant of C's home, finding A's letter. Even though the letter contains A's communications.
Under your Verizon argument, the issue is that the government has used Verizon's equipment, has essentially made Verizon a state actor. That's why you have standing. The better analogy, and the more frequent one, is that Verizon is served with a warrant for information about you.
Of course, wiretapping is governed by Title III, but that's a different story, and we're going far afield.
They were probably on the fence on him testifying or not. By the decision to testify was made it was probably too late to change the motion to suppress evidence (this likely happened mid trial). As you probably noticed, Ross for all intensive purposes did not put on a defense.
The defense also has submitted an amended motion to suppress the evidence, but this time admitting ownership of the servers in question.
Too little; too late. Ulbricht was able to testify at the suppression hearing and not have that testimony used by the government in its case-in-chief. Why he chose not to acknowledge ownership of the servers, I admit to being as befuddled as the judge. This is like ... law school level criminal procedure.