Bankman-Fried’s Lawyers Object to Testimony from Ukrainian Witness
In the ongoing legal battle against Sam Bankman-Fried, his attorneys have sent a letter to the judge opposing the testimony of a government witness from Ukraine. The witness claims to have lost a significant portion of their life savings due to the collapse of FTX. However, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers argue that allowing this witness to testify remotely would violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers.
Lawyers Argue Irrelevance and Prejudice
The lawyers contend that the Ukrainian witness’s testimony would be irrelevant to the charges against Bankman-Fried and would only serve to appeal to the sympathies of the jury. They highlight that the witness’s hardships are a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has no direct connection to the case at hand.
Opposition to Customer Witnesses and Investor Testimony
In another letter, Bankman-Fried’s lawyer argues against allowing customer witnesses and investor testimony. The lawyer believes it is premature for the court to rule on the admissibility of such testimony without knowing its specific content. They assert that customer testimony about their understanding of FTX’s custody of assets is irrelevant, and investor testimony about materiality is improper.
Defense Calls for Fair Treatment
The defense argues that the government cannot selectively admit evidence based on whether it supports their case or not. They assert that if customers’ beliefs and understanding are considered relevant, then the defense should be allowed to cross-examine witnesses on these matters. The defense urges the court to deny the government’s motion as unfounded and premature.
Hot Take: Defense Challenges Government’s Approach
Bankman-Fried’s attorneys are pushing back against the government’s attempt to introduce testimony from a Ukrainian witness. They argue that the witness’s hardships resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine are irrelevant and would only elicit sympathy from the jury. Additionally, they oppose the inclusion of customer witnesses and investor testimony, calling it premature and improper. The defense emphasizes the need for fair treatment and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. As the legal battle continues, the court will ultimately decide whether to allow these testimonies.
By
By
By
By