Jurors in SDNY are weighing whether blockchain code can set legal rights and obligations in United States v. Anton Peraire-Bueno and James Peraire-Bueno, who face accusations of stealing $25 million in ETH through an exploit.

The courtroom features Judge Jessica Clarke, defense attorney Katherine Trefz, and expert witnesses on MEV arbitrage, with technical discussion punctuated by several breaks.

Prosecutors frame the defendants’ actions as a deceptive bait‑and‑switch exploit targeting MEV sandwich bots, while the defense argues they were simply operating within Ethereum’s rules, likening it to stealing a base in baseball.

A guilty verdict could imply Ethereum code alone cannot maintain order without court intervention, potentially carrying prison outcomes for the defendants and signaling major implications for crypto governance.

The core issue is whether code and blockchain rules can define permissible conduct and penalties, with Coin Center contending validators follow self-executing rules and the prosecution warning that possibility does not equal legality.

Both sides use analogies to explain Ethereum mechanics to jurors, from food-related metaphors to other relatable comparisons, highlighting the challenge of conveying complex tech to a lay audience.