Top Crypto Lawyer Forecasts Updated Verdict Date for Ripple-SEC Case

Renowned crypto attorney, John Deaton, recently addressed the crypto community’s impatience over the long-awaited Ripple-SEC case verdict. In an analysis of the case’s intricate proceedings, Deaton shed light on why the verdict may take longer than anticipated and when he believes a ruling will come along.

Behind the Complex Court Proceedings

At the core of the case are the summary judgment motions, a legal measure that aims to prompt a case’s conclusion without a full trial. Both Ripple and the SEC have filed such motions, initiating a dense cycle of objections and replies. 

With each party’s brief extending over 50 pages, the judge must review hundreds of pages of intricate arguments. This process is further extended by the six months taken to review the reply brief alone, which was due last December.

A Deep Dive into Daubert Motion Timings

Adding to the complexity is the Daubert motion or the expert motion, filed on March 6th. Deaton examined past verdicts from the same judge, noting decisions that coincided with the Daubert ruling, and others that occurred up to six months post-Daubert. 

Drawing an average from these durations, Deaton predicted the Ripple case verdict to likely emerge around late May or early June. However, in one instance, the judge had taken a full six months post-Daubert to arrive at a decision, implying that the Ripple verdict could be pushed to September. Specifically, September 6, he predicts.

Dissecting the Implication of the Verdict’s Delays

Deaton dispelled notions that this case is unduly delayed, emphasizing that this is one among hundreds of cases the judge oversees, and the complexity and importance of the Ripple-SEC case necessitates thorough scrutiny. 

The verdict, once decided, will not be privately communicated to Ripple or the SEC, contrary to some speculations. Instead, a public filing, similar to past court proceedings, will announce the decision, ensuring that all stakeholders learn the verdict simultaneously.

Addressing doubts over judicial bias, Deaton defended the integrity of the presiding judges. He rejected the idea of “government hacks,” judges who always side with the government, and affirmed faith in the current judicial process.