Normally, you need to preserve arguments for appeal if they are related to evidence. It's unclear which, if any, arguments have not been preserved. However, at the same time in federal court, appeals courts generally have broad discretion to consider legal arguments not raised below, particularly if they are just about the law, not about some particular piece of evidence.

All this said, Kerr is only consulting/helping out AFAIK. He is not the arguing attorney (I hope). He's not really a litigator (he has about 3 years of experience in it, most of it from very early days of his career).

I am doubtful that his expertise would have really mattered at the trial stage. You can either convince a judge of something, or you can't.