Judging Sam: Sam Bankman-Fried Faces Cross-Examination

Defense's Strategy: Lack of Knowledge and Oversight

During the podcast episode, the defense's direct examination of Sam Bankman Free focused on portraying him as a CEO who was out of his depth and unaware of the potential insolvency of Alameda Research. The defense argued that Sam believed both Alameda and FTX were successful companies and had no knowledge of the risks involved until FTX crashed. They emphasized that Sam's conversations with others, such as Caroline Ellison and Sam Trebuca, were taken out of context and misunderstood. However, the prosecution's cross-examination, led by prosecutor Danielle Sassoon, challenged Sam's claims by presenting evidence contradicting his statements. For instance, she highlighted conversations where Sam suggested trades to Alameda personnel and played podcast episodes in which he contradicted his own claims. Overall, the defense's strategy aimed to create doubt and sympathy for Sam, but the prosecution effectively used Sam's own words to undermine his credibility.