The layman's definition doesn't matter in the least. What matters are the jury instructions, which you can look up. The court system does not in fact leave it up to whatever definitions of a crime happen to be bouncing around in the jury's heads; the conditions required to find someone guilty of a crime tend to be spelled out in great detail.
Jury instructions which are sure to include a version of "the wire fraud statute is defined as x, for those of you who are not attorneys, think of this as {{ Insert layman's definition here }}."
Rephrasing would help the jury understand how to evaluate Aaron's actions and determine whether or not they meet the standard.
I may be missing something about what transpired that causes me to think that it does not apply, but you can be sure that the jury will have heard evidence from the prosecution which lays out why they believe it is relevant in this particular case.
They’re not what I would call a “layman’s definition”. When you’re on a trial like this, you’ll probably get a printed out version of these instructions to read over and over while deliberating. And the lawyers on each side will try to contextualize their arguments against this exact language (as long as the judge doesn’t think they’re being misleading or breaking other rules).
You may not come into the trial as an expert on wire fraud, but the court will give you the background info you need, and you’re expected to make a judgement based on the law.
Of course, my memory my be failing me as to details that would make it relevant in his case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud#Wire_fraud