Unchained A 20+ Year Sentence? Why the Evidence Against SBF Was Too Hard to Overcome - Ep. 566
Nov 7, 2023
Sam Enzer, a partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel and defense lawyer for Sam Bankman-Fried, joins former prosecutor Rich Cooper to dissect the Sam Bankman-Fried trial. They dive into the effectiveness of the government's case, highlighting the impact of cross-examination on the jury's decision. Enzer explains why SBF’s controversial tweet posed a challenge for the defense. They also discuss the implications of ‘conscious avoidance’ and ponder the complexities surrounding the sentencing timeline. Will SBF face more charges? Tune in for their insights!
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Cross-Examination Effectiveness
- SBF's detailed recall during direct examination contrasted sharply with his sudden inability to remember during cross-examination.
- Jurors recognize "I don't recall" as a potential indicator of deception.
Preemptive Addressing of Weaknesses
- Anticipate major weaknesses in your case and address them directly during the initial presentation.
- Diffuse potential attacks by incorporating difficult topics into your narrative.
False Exculpatory Statement
- The defense attempted to introduce a self-serving statement by SBF from Michael Lewis's book, claiming lack of criminal intent.
- The prosecution objected, citing hearsay rules, arguing the statement was false and inadmissible.
