Skip to main content
Aandradejudicialreview.com

The 2025 criminal post-trial record

Read the arguments. Understand the ruling. Support fair review.

Why did Andrade's lawyers seek acquittal or a new trial, how did the government respond, and what did the court decide? These seven documents make that dispute accessible. They explain the trial-stage arguments behind the continuing campaign without promising a legal outcome.

Donate to the CampaignPetition information

The decision: both requests were denied

On June 25, 2025, Judge Richard Seeborg denied Rowland Marcus Andrade's requests for judgment of acquittal and a new trial in ECF 694, United States v. Andrade, No. 3:20-cr-00249-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The order rejected the asserted grounds and found any assumed errors harmless, individually and together. It did not overturn the verdicts, grant a retrial or decide the later appeal.

This criminal ruling is separate from the October 2026 SEC civil disqualification request and April 2026 appellate-funding request. The supplied records do not establish a later appellate outcome.

Read the conclusion: ECF 694, PDF p. 14 (PDF, new tab)

The dispute, in context

Defense argument. Government response. Court ruling.

These are summaries of the supplied filings, not an independent retrial of the evidence or a current docket-status check. PDF pages count from the cover.

Jury instructions

The defense argues
The defense challenged the money-laundering instruction, the wording of the good-faith instruction and the absence of a multiple-schemes instruction.
The government responds
The government defended the instructions and argued that the evidence did not require the defense's proposed changes.
The court held
The court rejected these grounds. A good-faith instruction was given; the dispute concerned its wording, not its total absence. The court also found any assumed instructional errors harmless.

Defense: ECF 656, PDF pp. 12-23; response: ECF 682; ruling: ECF 694, PDF pp. 3-9.

Read this part of the ruling (PDF, new tab)

The allegedly misleading social-media evidence

The defense argues
Counsel argued that a password-list image on a phone in 2020 created a misleading inference about control of social-media accounts during 2017-2018.
The government responds
The government disputed falsity and materiality and relied on independent witness testimony and documents about account control.
The court held
The court found no Napue violation, noted the defense's concession that the testimony was literally true, and relied on other evidence of account control. This is not a court finding of fabricated evidence.

Defense: ECF 656, PDF pp. 23-29; response: ECF 682; ruling: ECF 694, PDF pp. 9-11.

Read this part of the ruling (PDF, new tab)

Presentation of the defense case

The defense argues
The motion and declarations describe restrictions counsel says affected documents, recorded conversations, expert evidence, cross-examination and impeachment.
The government responds
The government defended the evidentiary decisions and disputed that the claimed restrictions established prejudice warranting a new trial.
The court held
The court left the prior rulings in place and found no sufficient prejudice. Dent's corrected declaration distinguishes excluded, later-admitted, unoffered and admitted exhibits; they should not all be described as excluded evidence.

Defense: ECF 656, PDF pp. 29-50; response: ECF 682; ruling: ECF 694, PDF pp. 11-12.

Read this part of the ruling (PDF, new tab)

Late accounting records and trial preparation

The defense argues
The defense argued that late accounting discovery and denial of a continuance impaired financial review and preparation, and that the claimed errors were cumulatively prejudicial.
The government responds
The government acknowledged late production of accountant records but disputed that it justified relief or that the defense established the required prejudice.
The court held
The court acknowledged the late production, found prejudice was not established, and rejected the continuance and cumulative-error grounds. A conceded delay is not the same as a finding that a new trial was required.

Defense: ECF 656, PDF pp. 51-55; response: ECF 682; ruling: ECF 694, PDF pp. 12-14.

Read this part of the ruling (PDF, new tab)
Defense motionGovernment responseDefense reply

Seven supplied documents

Read or download the complete supplied packet

The supplied packet is not the complete docket or trial transcript. Dent's corrected declaration refers to exhibits that are not attached; no sealed exhibits are reconstructed.

Help sustain the effort for fair review

Support the campaign and family, share the full record, and learn what the petition asks. Neither donating nor signing guarantees relief or changes the court's ruling.

Donate to the CampaignPetition information