Sam Bankman-Fried’s defense seeks to block Ukrainian witness testimony

• One of many key arguments put forth by SBF’s authorized workforce was primarily based on the Sixth Modification’s Confrontation Clause.
• Additionally they aimed to acquire clarification relating to the courtroom’s earlier choice to preclude arguments associated to FTX’s regulatory standing.

In a brand new improvement within the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), his protection workforce is actively working to forestall a Ukrainian buyer from testifying remotely. They argue that such an affidavit may probably manipulate the jury’s feelings, relatively than specializing in info and proof.

In a letter submitted on 2 October, they firmly opposed the Division of Justice’s (DOJ) request to permit an FTX [FTT] buyer, who resides in Ukraine, to supply distant testimony.

Protection Attorneys argue distant testimony violates Sixth Modification rights

One of many key arguments put forth by Bankman-Fried’s authorized workforce is predicated on the Sixth Modification’s Confrontation Clause. This clause, which has deep roots in American authorized ideas, offers each defendant with the proper “to confront the witnesses towards him.”

In keeping with his attorneys, this constitutional proper leans closely towards face-to-face, in-court testimony.

The DOJ, alternatively, had beforehand sought permission from the courtroom for the Ukrainian witness to testify remotely. They argued that the witness confronted distinctive challenges as a result of their location in Ukraine.

The losses incurred throughout the Russian invasion of 2022 was additionally cited as one other problem. This particular person is a younger man who entrusted a good portion of his financial savings to FTX. He represents a compelling perspective on this high-profile case.

The DOJ emphasised the relevance of various buyer testimonies from numerous geographical places and backgrounds. Such testimonies, they asserted, would assist set up the in depth influence of FTX, in addition to Bankman-Fried’s promotional efforts and public statements, throughout the cryptocurrency group.

Trending

How To Use Binance.US Change To Purchase Bitcoin and Crypto [2022]

Authorized battle poised for attention-grabbing flip

Looking for additional readability, Bankman-Fried’s authorized workforce filed one other letter on Monday. They aimed to acquire clarification relating to the courtroom’s earlier choice to preclude arguments associated to FTX’s regulatory standing inside the US and the compliance of FTX.US.

Moreover, Bankman-Fried’s protection wished to establish whether or not they may current proof associated to his “prior good acts.” These embody numerous charitable contributions and philanthropic endeavors. Additionally they sought readability on the admissibility of proof regarding asset restoration within the FTX chapter proceedings.

Moreover, Bankman-Fried’s attorneys requested the courtroom’s steerage on the admission of proof relating to an alleged unlawful marketing campaign finance scheme.

The presiding decide had dominated that SBF can not use the “recommendation of counsel” argument in his opening remarks. This choice goals to forestall prejudicing the jury from the outset.

SBF’s protection had meant to argue that his actions had been primarily based on authorized recommendation from FTX’s counsel, Fenwick & West, and had been carried out in good religion.

Prosecutors plan to current testimony from clients, traders, and co-conspirators adversely affected by FTX’s collapse, together with former FTX co-founder Gary Wang and others.