Why SBF's Testimony So Far Has Likely Already Doomed Him - Ep. 563
Oct 30, 2023
auto_awesome
In the podcast, Sam Bankman-Fried's testimony in the SPF trial is analyzed, focusing on his contorted arguments and lack of supporting documents. The impact of the prosecutor's cross-examination and the defense strategy are discussed. The significance of bank accounts and charge conferences in a trial, as well as the inner workings of jury deliberations, are explored.
Sam Bankman-Fried's testimony during the trial raised doubts about his credibility, casting himself as uninformed and lacking knowledge, contradicting evidence presented by other witnesses who portrayed him as involved and aware.
The defense's reliance on the presence of counsel defense may weaken their overall argument and fail to sway the jury, as the judge expressed skepticism regarding its relevance to the core issues of the case and the government challenged SPF's claims with inconsistencies and lack of explicit evidence.
Deep dives
SPF's Testimony Raises Doubts About his Credibility
During the trial, Sam Bankman-Fried (SPF) took the stand to defend his actions. However, his testimony raised doubts about his credibility. He often cast himself as being in the dark about the core allegations against him, claiming surprise and lack of knowledge. This contradicted evidence presented by other witnesses who portrayed him as involved and aware. Furthermore, SPF's explanations for certain actions, such as the allow negative function and Caroline Ellison's alleged lack of hedging, seemed unconvincing and evasive in nature. His lengthy and vague responses to questioning also suggested a lack of transparency. Overall, SPF's testimony may not have effectively convinced the jury of his innocence.
Presence of Counsel Defense Challenged
SPF attempted to present a presence of counsel defense, claiming that he relied on legal advice to justify his actions. However, the judge expressed skepticism regarding the relevance of this defense, stating that it was not germane to the core issues of the case. The government successfully challenged the idea that SPF's actions were sanctioned by legal counsel, pointing out inconsistencies and lack of explicit evidence supporting his claims. The defense's reliance on the presence of counsel defense may weaken their overall argument and fail to sway the jury.
Potential Impact of Rebuttal Witnesses
The government may call rebuttal witnesses to counter the defense's case and address any new concepts introduced. While it is uncertain who these witnesses might be, the government could bring forth experts or individuals with relevant knowledge to challenge SPF's testimony. This could further undermine his credibility and provide counterarguments to the defense's narrative. The presence of rebuttal witnesses will play a crucial role in shaping the jury's perception and evaluating the strength of SPF's defense.
The Importance of Cross-Examination and Closing Arguments
Cross-examination and closing arguments will be critical moments in the trial. The government will have the opportunity to challenge SPF's testimony and highlight inconsistencies or evasiveness. Danielle Sessoon, the prosecutor, has already shown her effectiveness in questioning SPF. Additionally, the defense's closing arguments will need to address the weaknesses and doubts raised throughout the trial, while trying to sway the jury in SPF's favor. The jury charge, which outlines the instructions on the law, will also significantly impact the jury's final decision. Deliberations will follow, during which the jury will assess the evidence and arguments to reach a verdict.
Sam Enzer, a partner at the law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, told Laura that former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried did about as well as he could in his testimony Friday but that he was unlikely “to withstand the scrutiny” of what prosecutors have already said will be a robust cross-examination when he takes the stand Monday.
Enzer noted that Bankman-Fried’s attempts to explain why he thought his trading shop, Alameda Research, could borrow billions in dollars of FTX customer assets “defies common sense,” and that the company’s own terms of agreement or any other communications offered no justification for this belief. A Thursday hearing without the jury present, in which the defense gave a preview of some arguments it wanted to make, ended up giving the government answers from SBF that it can now use against him. Enzer also said that Bankman-Fried’s contention that his biggest mistake – a failure to implement proper risk management – did not constitute criminal fraud, did not address the core of the government’s case; namely, that he lied about how FTX was handling customer deposits.
Show highlights:
why Enzer thinks Sam Bankman-Fried’s testimony is unlikely to sway jury sentiment or withstand cross-examination
why the evidentiary hearing in which SBF testified without a jury may hurt his cause
the purpose of the evidentiary hearing
how Judge Lewis Kaplan hinted at what he thought about SBF’s testimony
how Bankman-Fried is likely to fare against prosecutor Danielle Sassoon in what she has promised will be a robust cross-examination
how the defense tried to recast SBF’s image by humanizing him
why the defense now has the strongest grounds for an appeal than it previously did
what the jury is likely to make of SBF’s contention that he was in the dark about core allegations
why the prosecution said it will call rebuttal witnesses
what a charge conference is and why that will take place after SBF testifies