FTX Founder’s Defense Fails to Make Progress in Trial
The second week of Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial has come to an end, and it seems that his defense team has not been successful so far. One notable moment was when Mark Cohen cross-examined Caroline Ellison on October 12, but it did not lead to any significant breakthroughs for the defense.
Ineffective Cross-Examination by SBF’s Lawyers
During the cross-examination, Cohen attempted to establish that some of the decisions made by Bankman-Fried were not incorrect. However, the prosecution objected on the grounds of relevance. Although Ellison responded to the question, her answer was inconclusive.
Cohen then started asking irrelevant questions or failing to prove Bankman-Fried’s innocence. Some of these questions focused on how Bankman-Fried and Ellison handled stress differently or their different styles.
One question asked by Cohen was whether Bankman-Fried was willing to take on more business risk than Ellison, to which she answered yes. The purpose of this line of questioning remains unclear and could be counterproductive for the defense.
Lack of New Ideas and Repetition
At one point, it seemed like the defense had run out of ideas as they began asking questions that had already been addressed during direct examination. The prosecutor pointed this out to the court, and Judge Kaplan agreed, urging Cohen to move on to a different topic.
Judge Kaplan also expressed frustration with constant sidebars and asked the defense to minimize them. Cohen had repeatedly requested sidebars to argue why certain questions should be allowed.
A Different Approach Could Have Been More Effective
Judge Kaplan made an interesting remark before the jury returned from a break, suggesting that he had never seen the cross-examination of a cooperator done in this manner. It is possible that the defense approached Ellison’s cross-examination as if she were the defendant, trying to prove her guilt, rather than focusing on discrediting her testimony.
Legal experts had warned about the importance of Ellison’s testimony and advised the defense to focus on proving Bankman-Fried’s lack of control over Alameda while Ellison was CEO. In hindsight, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers may feel they could have done more to establish his innocence based on Ellison’s testimony.
Hot Take: Defense Struggles to Make Progress in Bankman-Fried Trial
The second week of Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial has not been favorable for his defense team. Despite their efforts in cross-examining Caroline Ellison, they failed to establish any significant points in favor of Bankman-Fried’s innocence. The defense seemed to lack new ideas and even repeated questions that had already been answered. Judge Kaplan expressed frustration with the constant sidebars and urged the defense to minimize them. Legal experts have suggested that a different approach focusing on discrediting Ellison’s testimony could have been more effective. As the trial continues, it remains to be seen how Bankman-Fried’s defense will proceed.
By
By
By
By
By