SBF Withdraws Trial Motion, Maintains Judge Recusal Push
Sam Bankman-Fried has temporarily withdrawn his Rule 33 motion for a new trial while keeping alive his broader legal challenge, including a pending request to have Judge Lewis Kaplan removed from the case.[1][2] The former FTX founder, currently serving a 25-year federal prison sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California, filed the withdrawal letter on April 23, 2026, citing his inability to secure what he views as a fair hearing before the sitting judge.[1]
The tactical move reflects a deliberate sequencing decision: Bankman-Fried has preserved his right to refile the motion after both his direct appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and his separate request for judicial reassignment have been resolved.[1][2] This structure allows him to consolidate his appellate resources while avoiding an adverse precedent that could weaken future relief efforts.
At a Glance
Subscribe to our Social Media for Exclusive Crypto News and Insights 24/7!
- Motion Status: Rule 33 motion for new trial withdrawn without prejudice on April 23, 2026; preserved for renewal post-appeal.[1][2]
- Reason for Withdrawal: Bankman-Fried stated he cannot receive fair treatment from Judge Kaplan and chose to withdraw rather than defend the motion against prosecution challenges.[1][5]
- Judge Challenge Active: Separate motion for judicial recusal filed February 2026, currently pending before the Second Circuit alongside the direct appeal.[3]
- Sentence: 25 years in prison for fraud-related charges tied to FTX customer fund misappropriation, imposed following November 2023 conviction.[1][4]
- Current Location: Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, California.[3][4]
- Legal Representation: Motion drafted pro se (self-represented) with only editorial input from his parents; no formal attorney involvement claimed.[1][5]
The Withdrawal Strategy
Bankman-Fried’s letter to Judge Kaplan outlined the immediate trigger: he was ordered to clarify under oath whether he received unauthorized legal assistance while preparing his Rule 33 motion.[2][4] Instead of responding to the prosecution’s opposition, he decided to step back entirely. “As I have had to focus on responding to these questions rather than drafting a response to the prosecution’s opposition, and because I do not believe I will get a fair hearing on this topic in front of you, I am now requesting to withdraw the Rule 33 motion,” he wrote.[5]
The withdrawal is strategic rather than final. By pulling the motion now, Bankman-Fried avoids giving Judge Kaplan an opportunity to issue a potentially adverse ruling-one that could carry precedential weight against future filings.[3] He’s betting that the Second Circuit will either grant his recusal request or affirm his direct appeal in a way that resets the procedural landscape.[2][3]
Judge Kaplan had previously ordered Bankman-Fried to disclose whether he received unauthorized legal assistance in preparing the motion.[4] Prosecutors had questioned whether the filing was truly self-prepared or involved outside help, creating a procedural tangle that gave Bankman-Fried reason to withdraw without losing future options.[2]
The Recusal Request Remains Active
The judge challenge itself remains very much alive. Bankman-Fried’s legal team filed a formal motion for judicial recusal in February 2026, alleging that Judge Kaplan demonstrated “extreme bias” throughout trial proceedings.[3][4] That motion is currently pending before the Second Circuit, running parallel to the direct appeal of his conviction and 25-year sentence.[3]
The logic is transparent: a successful recusal would transfer the case to a different district court judge, effectively giving Bankman-Fried a cleaner slate for future Rule 33 motions.[3] Without that reassignment, he views any new trial motion filed before Kaplan as destined for rejection.
Bankman-Fried’s claim centers on what his legal team characterizes as judicial prejudice throughout the trial itself. The Second Circuit now has both the direct appeal and the recusal request under consideration, with no clear timeline for resolution announced.[2][4]
Pro Se Motion Authorship
Bankman-Fried maintains that he conceived, researched, and drafted the Rule 33 motion entirely while incarcerated at Brooklyn jail, with only editorial suggestions and printing assistance from his parents.[1][5][6] No formal attorney involvement is claimed. This pro se status became the focal point after prosecutors questioned the motion’s sophistication and timing.[2]
The authorship dispute itself triggered the court order that ultimately led to the withdrawal. By stepping back now, Bankman-Fried avoids what could have become a detailed examination of his legal process-testimony that might complicate his later filings if a judge change does occur.[3]
The Broader Legal Posture
Bankman-Fried was convicted in November 2023 on seven counts of fraud tied to FTX’s misappropriation of customer funds.[7] He was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.[1][4]
The direct appeal currently before the Second Circuit represents his primary avenue for sentence or conviction relief at the appellate level. The Rule 33 motion-governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33-allows for new trial motions based on newly discovered evidence or other grounds.[2] By withdrawing it now, he’s signaling that he’ll pursue appellate review first and revisit trial relief only after that process concludes.
His current location at FCI Lompoc places him in a medium-security federal facility in California, far from the New York court system that has been handling his case.[3][4]
Uncertainty and Timing
The Second Circuit has not announced a timeline for ruling on either the recusal motion or the direct appeal.[2][4] Without clarity on those fronts, it’s unclear when-or if-Bankman-Fried will actually refile his Rule 33 motion. The conditional language of his withdrawal (“without prejudice to renewing”) preserves the legal right, but the practical window depends on appellate outcomes.[1][2]
One open question: whether a change of judge, if granted, would materially alter Bankman-Fried’s chances of success on a new trial motion. The Second Circuit’s decision to grant recusal would reset the district court judge assignment, but it would not automatically overturn the underlying conviction. Any new trial motion would still need to meet the legal threshold under Rule 33.[2][3]
Prosecutors have already signaled their opposition to new trial relief, and that stance is unlikely to shift absent genuinely new evidence-a bar that remains uncertain.[4]
The Bottom Line
Bankman-Fried’s withdrawal of his Rule 33 motion on April 23, 2026, is a procedural retreat designed to preserve leverage. His recusal request remains pending before the Second Circuit, and his direct appeal is also under active consideration there.[2][3] By consolidating his appellate firepower and avoiding an adverse ruling from Judge Kaplan before a potential judge change, he’s optimizing the sequencing of his legal challenge rather than abandoning it.
The outcome ultimately rests with the Second Circuit’s handling of both the recusal motion and the direct appeal-decisions that will shape whether his later attempts at trial relief face a friendlier judicial audience or remain locked in front of a judge he views as biased.[3][4]
[1] https://www.kucoin.com/news/flash/sbf-withdraws-motion-for-retrial-citing-inability-to-secure-fair-trial
[2] https://www.mexc.com/news/1046989
[3] https://www.coinspeaker.com/sam-bankman-withdraws-new-trial-motion-fair-hearing/amp/
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-23-sbf-withdraws-new-trial-bid-while-keeping-appeal-alive
[5] https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/04/23/sam-bankman-fried-withdraws-new-trial-motion-questions-judges-fairness/
[6] https://phemex.com/news/article/sbf-withdraws-motion-for-retrial-citing-fair-trial-concerns-75396
[7] https://www.panewslab.com/en/articles/019db7a1-a8d1-752a-a832-cbeacd6f7d7a
