Preparations for the upcoming trial of brothers Shane and Sean Hvizdzak are well underway, including motions asking a federal judge to keep specific things out of the jury’s hands.

The brothers — Shane, 37, of Bradford, and Sean, 39, of St. Marys — face a 65-count federal indictment on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. They allegedly carried out a $31 million cryptocurrency scheme, falsely inflating returns to get more investors on board while diverting funds to their own accounts, the prosecution alleges.

Shane Hvizdzak

In his motion, Shane Hvizdzak asked District Judge W. Scott Hardy to preclude “any evidence or argument, including witness testimony, about the negative consequences of Hvizdzak’s alleged offenses on investors, including the impact on their personal and financial situations or their health.”

It is not relevant, his attorneys argue, and would only serve to unfairly prejudice the jury against him.

Sean Hvizdzak

Sean Hvizdzak, an attorney whose license is temporarily suspended, had a longer list, including asking that the jury not hear about the suspension, which would be unfairly prejudicial.

His omnibus motion is 14 pages long and sets out nine matters for the judge to consider. He asked that the jury not be able to consider his acceptance of the asset freeze as an admission of guilt as it is not. Any stipulation in a civil case on the same grounds should not be admitted, as it would be prejudicial and is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Similar arguments are made for a deed transfer, finances since the indictment, and emails with CNB.

The prosecution, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Trabold, had a 35-page motion about the presentation of their case, the limits of character witnesses and more.

The judge should exclude any potential testimony about the impact of the investigation on the brothers or possible consequences of the verdict. It isn’t relevant, Trabold indicated. Any evidence alleging the two didn’t benefit from their scheme should be excluded, he wrote, as should any claims that the victims were negligent.

The prosecution should be allowed to use hypotheticals, as if the victims knew the alleged high returns for the Hvizdzaks’ fund were false, would they still have invested?

Trabold also asked the judge to allow exhibits of charts “tracing the flow of victim investor funds after the funds were provided to the Hvizdzaks” and related exhibits to help the jury understand the evidence before them.

Responses to the motions are due to be filed in the immediate future.