Stanford Law Professor David Mills Shares Insight on Sam Bankman-Fried Case
In a recent interview with Bloomberg, Stanford Law Professor David Mills provided his candid opinion on the Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) fraud case. Mills stated that the outcome of the case was already clear even before the trial began. He attributed this to pre-trial rulings by Judge Lewis Kaplan, which largely went against Bankman-Fried.
Mills also mentioned the powerful testimony of prosecution witnesses, including former members of SBF’s inner circle. These testimonies played a significant role in making the case “unwinnable” for Bankman-Fried. Despite the guilty verdict, Mills believes that Bankman-Fried is innocent because he did not have any intent to commit wrongdoing.
Bankman-Fried’s Ineffective Cross-Examination and Mills’ Motivation
Mills criticized Bankman-Fried’s performance during cross-examination, stating that it was one of the worst he had seen. However, he does not believe that a better performance would have changed the verdict, as the jury would still have found him guilty.
Despite his reservations, Mills agreed to help with the case due to his friendship with Bankman-Fried’s parents, who are also Law Professors at Stanford. However, he does not intend to be involved in any potential appeal by the defendant as he feels he has already become too involved in the case.
Closing Thoughts: A Challenging Case with Personal Consequences
Stanford Law Professor David Mills provided valuable insights into the Sam Bankman-Fried fraud case. He believed that pre-trial rulings and witness testimonies made it an “unwinnable” case for Bankman-Fried. Despite his belief in the defendant’s innocence, Mills acknowledged the shortcomings in Bankman-Fried’s cross-examination performance.
Mills’ involvement in the case was driven by his friendship with Bankman-Fried’s parents, who are also Law Professors. However, he expressed concerns about the impact this case may have had on their friendship. Moving forward, Mills does not plan to participate in any potential appeal, as he feels he has already been deeply involved.
By
By
By
By