- One of many key arguments put forth by SBF’s authorized group was based mostly on the Sixth Modification’s Confrontation Clause.
- In addition they aimed to acquire clarification relating to the court docket’s earlier choice to preclude arguments associated to FTX’s regulatory standing.
In a brand new growth within the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), his protection group is actively working to forestall a Ukrainian buyer from testifying remotely. They argue that such a sworn statement may probably manipulate the jury’s feelings, somewhat than specializing in information 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 offer distant testimony.
Protection Attorneys argue distant testimony violates Sixth Modification rights
One of many key arguments put forth by Bankman-Fried’s authorized group is predicated on the Sixth Modification’s Confrontation Clause. This clause, which has deep roots in American authorized ideas, offers each defendant with the appropriate “to confront the witnesses towards him.”
In accordance with his attorneys, this constitutional proper leans closely towards face-to-face, in-court testimony.
The DOJ, then again, had beforehand sought permission from the court docket for the Ukrainian witness to testify remotely. They argued that the witness confronted distinctive challenges as a consequence of their location in Ukraine.
The losses incurred in the course of 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 numerous 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.
Authorized battle poised for fascinating flip
In search of additional readability, Bankman-Fried’s authorized group filed one other letter on Monday. They aimed to acquire clarification relating to the court docket’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 needed to establish whether or not they may current proof associated to his “prior good acts.” These embrace numerous charitable contributions and philanthropic endeavors. In addition they sought readability on the admissibility of proof regarding asset restoration within the FTX chapter proceedings.
Moreover, Bankman-Fried’s attorneys requested the court docket’s steerage on the admission of proof relating to an alleged unlawful marketing campaign finance scheme.
The presiding choose 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 supposed to argue that his actions have been based mostly on authorized recommendation from FTX’s counsel, Fenwick & West, and have been carried out in good religion.
Prosecutors plan to current testimony from clients, buyers, and co-conspirators adversely affected by FTX’s collapse, together with former FTX co-founder Gary Wang and others.
