I’d be surprised if they learned anything new this week but either way he is going to get roasted today and tomorrow.
They originally thought that things would be wrapped up by the end of Thursday but the morning stated with the judge telling the jury that if they had plans on Friday that couldn’t be changed to write him a note.
From CNN
US Assistant Attorney Danielle Sassoon noted Monday that SBF publicly advocated for crypto regulation, citing a tweet in which he wrote his support for regulation was “contingent on protecting customers.”
“That was just for PR, wasn’t it?” Sassoon asked.
“No.” Bankman-Fried replied.
Sassoon then referenced an exchange SBF had with a reporter in which he said “f*ck regulators” and that his advocacy was “just PR.”
Another private conversation showed SBF calling some customers “dumb m*therf**kers.”
SBF pushed back on the question, saying that comment referred only to a “specific subset” of customers.
One thing people often forget about cross examination: in US law (and particularly in federal rules), cross examination is mostly restricted to attacking the preceding direct examination or the witness’ credibility. So what SBF spoke about during direct is at least where the prosecution can jump off from.
Ouch! And the evisceration begins!
I gotta admit, i don’t know anyone who deals with customers who doesn’t have at least a few customers who are dumb motherfuckers.
My understanding is that many judges deviate from that rule in practice for the sake of time, especially with criminal defendants.
Well sure but they should know not to express that in writing or maybe they’re the dumb motherfucker.
That’s what I was thinking about when I hedged my post with “mostly”. But I still suspect Sassoon will start out drawing blood by responding to the direct testimony.
It will be interesting to see how it goes if the prosecutor goes beyond customary limits of cross-examination and the defense objects.
NAL but wouldn’t attacking the credibility allow a very wide range of questions? Can they also question SBF about testimony from other witnesses?
SBF has been evasive and not directly answering questions. A lot of his answers have been anticipating where he thinks the DA is going with the line of questioning. A clear sign that he is foolishly trying to outsmart her. The judge has gotten exasperated and asked him to just answer yes or no.
That’s standard witness prep: don’t try to guess what the cross-examining lawyer is asking about; just answer the question, truthfully.
In this case, the jury has now seen the judge correct the witness for being evasive. They may consider that in assessing his credibility.
Another fantastic day’s summary from Elizabeth Lopatto
Egads, another hard take-down. One of the pieces I like is that our reporter (and yes, it’s subjective, but still) is looking at both the jury and those in the know (including SBF’s parents) and they apparently see the writing on the wall as well.
As the day wore on, I saw the mood in the jury box darken. At least three jurors were visibly fed up with Bankman-Fried’s “don’t recall” followed by the exact statement he’d been asked about. The remarkable thing was not that Sassoon had used Bankman-Fried’s many public statements to make him sound like a liar. It was that by denying he remembered making them so consistently, Bankman-Fried made himself sound like a liar.
I’m ever more fully in the camp (see my parody above) that someone, ANYONE SBF trusts should have sat him down and talked him out of testifying, ESPECIALLY after the pre-jury interview. Wait, I take it back. I want to see this guy go away as a sign to other financial criminals, so, no, I want him to screw up his defense by the numbers.
Sadly though, very few financial criminals screw up this badly, without a good fall out person to take the hit for them. And few leave evidence of their own, direct statements (even with the stuff lost to auto-deleting messages for financial “safety” [ huge /s of course]) littered about as much the thread’s namesake.
She is delivering far and away the best coverage of this proceeding.
I would like to think that Elizabeth Lopatto would fit in here, except that she’d shred everyone here who crossed her.
That series of articles are some of the finest reporting I’ve seen.
Cross examination is over. Redirect in process and will be done within the hour. The prosecution plans to call one more witness, an FBI agent and then closing arguments this afternoon
Well damn. SBF is done testifying. The prosecution isn’t calling anyone else. No more evidence will be presented. The jury was sent home and will be back at 9:30 tomorrow. There will be procedural stuff this afternoon, a “charging conference”. Maybe one of our legal eagles can explain what that is.
Lawyers and judge discussing the jury instructions to be given. The instructions are sometimes called the “charge” to the jury.
So, it doesn’t involve large doses of caffeine?
I certainly could. I’m doing one tomorrow, as a matter of fact. There will be caffeine