Judge Criticizes Sam Bankman-Fried's Lawyers Over Missteps

During the initial week of the trial for Mr. Sam Bankman-Fried, a former crypto mogul facing white-collar fraud charges, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan delivered multiple warnings to the defense, raising concerns about their strategy. The trial, taking place in Federal District Court in Manhattan, has seen Judge Kaplan’s patience wear thin as he repeatedly directed Mr. Bankman-Fried’s legal team to avoid unnecessary repetition and rephrase their questions. This relentless interruption and admonishment by the judge has left the defense off balance and on the defensive.

Known for his no-nonsense approach in the courtroom, Judge Kaplan has kept a particularly tight leash on the defense in this high-profile case. Legal experts suggest that when jurors witness a judge repeatedly intervening during cross-examinations and pointing out improper questions, it can create substantial challenges for the defendant, as the judge holds immense authority over the jury.

The trial resumed with two critical witnesses, Gary Wang, one of FTX’s top executives, and Caroline Ellison, Mr. Bankman-Fried’s former girlfriend, who ran a crypto trading firm linked to FTX customer deposits. Both witnesses have already pleaded guilty and are cooperating with authorities, while Mr. Bankman-Fried maintains his plea of not guilty to seven counts of wire fraud and conspiracy.

Judge Kaplan’s strict oversight of the defense could have far-reaching implications. In criminal cases, a defendant’s fate often hinges on their lawyers’ ability to challenge prosecution witnesses during cross-examination, creating reasonable doubt for the jury. However, Judge Kaplan has consistently warned the defense against revisiting facts brought up by the prosecution and has upheld objections from the prosecution regarding question phrasing. These admonitions have disrupted the defense’s ability to effectively convey their points and have visibly frustrated the judge.

Judge Kaplan has defended his warnings as necessary to keep the trial on track and ensure juror concentration. This courtroom control is praised by some legal experts for its efficiency.

The defense’s challenges have been compounded by prior rulings from Judge Kaplan, which restricted their ability to raise certain issues during the trial. For instance, they can’t argue that venture investors should have conducted more thorough due diligence, and Judge Kaplan has hinted at potentially unfavorable future rulings for the defense regarding the “buried facts doctrine,” which pertains to corporate disclosures. Such rulings could prevent Mr. Bankman-Fried from claiming that FTX’s customers and investors should have been aware of the associated risks of using the exchange.

While it’s unclear why Judge Kaplan introduced these issues relatively early in the trial, some legal experts see it as a potential sign of concern for the defense, as it may provide guidance to the prosecution. The trial will continue, and its outcome remains uncertain as it moves through the legal process.