Sam Bankman-Fried Sort of Had a Rough Day

Yesterday was arguably not a large time for Sam Bankman-Fried. First, the justice overseeing his lawsuit rejected each 7 of his projected adept witnesses*, questioning astatine slightest one’s qualifications and saying immoderate others truly wouldn’t beryllium applicable to the case.

Shortly after, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bankman-Fried’s entreaty of Judge Lewis Kaplan’s ruling to revoke his merchandise connected bail.

You're speechmaking The SBF Trial, a CoinDesk newsletter bringing you regular insights from wrong the courtroom wherever Sam Bankman-Fried volition effort to enactment retired of prison. Want to person it directly? Sign up here.

These are some mostly procedural losses. I don’t deliberation the entreaty denial is simply a astonishment to anyone. Judge Kaplan adjacent joked astir his grounds connected appeals (favorable) successful the Aug. 11 proceeding wherever helium remanded Bankman-Fried into custody, and so the three-judge sheet wrote that they “discern[ed] nary error, overmuch little wide error, successful the territory court’s detention decision.”

What this means is Bankman-Fried volition stay down bars arsenic his proceedings begins.

Judge Kaplan’s ruling is simply a batch much interesting. On the look of it – yes, helium granted the Department of Justice’s motions to barroom each of the defense’s projected adept witnesses from testifying. But this is much of a mixed bag: The defence tin inactive effort and telephone 4 of the witnesses, provided they capable retired amended disclosures astatine slightest 3 days earlier they’re expected to testify. The DOJ tin inactive entity to the witnesses arsenic well.

We already cognize the DOJ plans to telephone witnesses arsenic soon arsenic the week of Oct. 3, and portion I haven’t seen a afloat oregon last database of witnesses, we bash present person immoderate greater clarity astir who we tin expect to attest implicit the people of the trial: Gary Wang, Nishad Singh, Caroline Ellison, an FBI agent, Andria van der Merwe (a specializer successful “complex litigation and regulatory investigations related to fiscal markets,” according to her biography) and Peter Easton (a University of Notre Dame prof who volition seemingly explain FTX’s financials) for starters.

If the defence successfully calls them up, we may besides hear from Thomas Bishop to rebut what Easton says, Brian Kim who whitethorn rebut the FBI agent’s statements, Joseph Pimbley to respond to a DOJ witnesser connected FTX’s bundle and Andrew Di Wu to respond to van der Merwe’s testimony.