We are beginning the phone hearing to resolve this motion, with Rehn and another USA for the prosecution and Cline and Patton for Storm, about to discuss the role of discussions of privacy in the defense's opening statement, and going forward.

Judge Failla says she has reached a decision in the matter and won't need to hear oral arguments from the parties during this hearing.

"Like the defense, I understood the government's motion to be focused on 1st amendment or constitutional principles, and that Mr. Storm was not to make arguments for jury nullification based on these principles. But I understood that if he testified, he would discuss his beliefs about privacy ... I don't believe the government's motion was not meant to eliminate the use of the word, or references to the concept, of privacy." - Failla

"I think the government's concern was that Mrs. Axel referred to a right to privacy. I agree with the government that this comes very close to the line ... so I am therefore cautioning the defense [that while they can discuss privacy] ... to stay away from statements like the "right" to privacy, which have legal connotations they may not be aiming to get into." - Failla

Re: Second motion, reference to people being kidnapped and blackmailed because of a lack of privacy: "If the defense argues that these incidents are needed to bolster the argument for the necessity of privacy, I am excluding those examples. There will be less inflammatory examples - "you need tornado cash or your kid might be kidnapped" could certainly be prejudicial to a jury." - Failla

"However, if this evidence is probitive of Mr. Storms Mens Rea, and why he acted or failed to act when he learned of criminal proceeds," it might be admissible. "But I need to have some evidence that Mr. Storm was aware of it, or that a reasonable or average participant in the cryptocurrency community would have been aware of it." - Failla

These events would also have to have occured before the events charged in the indictment - that is, nothing that occured in 2025 would be relevant to Storm's mens rea. But it does sound like Failla will admit this type of evidence, in principle.

This will come in part from one Dr. Green, an expert to be called by the defense. So it sounds like we will get a strong, sensible explanation of the stakes of privacy from the defense, just without specific reference to a "right" to privacy.

Rehn posits that the defense should proffer any such examples before it comes up in front of the jury, since a limiting instruction (telling the jury to forget something out of scope) could contaminate the jury irreversibly. Failla disagrees and "trusts in the defense team and their obligation as officers of the court."