In court filings and during recent hearings, prosecutors and defense attorneys gave some indication of what arguments they might make and what evidence they might present during trial.
Prosecutors wrote that they intended to give out-of-court statements made by both defendants, as well as Mr. Correa, Mr. Fruman and Mr. Muraviev. Most of them, he said, “were built into electronic communications such as email, text messages and chats using WhatsApp.”
Potential witnesses include Deanna van Rensberg, who served as Mr. Parnas’ personal assistant from April 2018 until his arrest, and Mr. Laxalt, who is now vying for the Republican nomination for a US Senate seat, he wrote.
Mr. Parnas’s lawyer, Joseph A. Bondi suggested during the hearing on October 5 that he could portray his client as a person with a “relative lack of education” in the field of election law.
And a lawyer for Mr. Kukushkin indicated that he planned to portray his client as Mr. Parnas’ victim rather than his co-conspirator.
The lawyer, Gerald B. Lefcourt, in a recent court filing described Mr Parnas as the perpetrator of a “thief” who, along with Mr Fruman and Mr Correia, defrauded Mr Kukushkin at a “dog and pony show”. “Used. And many more.
“They portrayed themselves as well-connected, powerful political power brokers who could speak directly to the President of the United States, his children, his inner circle,” Mr Lefcourt wrote. “Of course, it was all a hoax, a big fraud or a Ponzi scheme.”