This week marked another episode in the saga that surrounds the former FTX CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried. The self-proclaimed magma-hot core of blockchain trading found himself in the legal boiler again while stationed in New York City’s Metropolitan Detention Center. His criminal defense team argued fervently that limited internet access and inferior laptop technology are standing as barriers in the preparation of his defense for the October trial.
The bone of contention revolves around the lack of sophisticated amenities inside the detention center, hindering the ex-CEO from going through the mountains of pretrial evidence effectively. The essence of these arguments and the snap hearing took place over teleconferences, which are more of a compulsion in the current times, rather than a choice.
While the defense pushed a weighty argument – their client’s dependency on these basics to prepare his defense proficiently, it fell flat on Judge Kaplan’s ears, who remained unmoved. Instead, he granted an additional week to both parties before making any decisions on temporary release. He declined any significant concessions, even when he was informed that the government was offloading millions of discovery documents weeks before the start of the trial.
Although there’s a standing window to postpone the trial’s onset, the defense team has indicated their lack of enthusiasm for the delay. The defense, prosecution and the judge engaged in analytical angle shifts around the functioning of MDC conditions. Any possible attempts at resolution were met with counterarguments of security and practicality, including the bizarre debate around the fundamental amenity of an extension cord.
Bankman-Fried crossed legal lines in August and was incarcerated on a charge of attempted witness tampering, which led him to the confinement of Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center. Judge Kaplan painted Bankman-Fried as a character who was willing to risk crossing the line, thereby revoking his bail.
A motion presented by his attorney last Friday requested either temporary release before the trial or an allowance for him to meet his defense team for five days a week, arguing about the constitutional right to a fair trial. The defense cited that the jail conditions hampered his desire and ability to participate actively in his defense.
An important ask on the list was to gain access to a laptop and internet to navigate through documents before trial. The defense team upheld that the provided laptop is both digitally and mechanically handicapped, with insufficient battery power, and a lethargic internet connection. Prosecutors took the easier path by placing the responsibility of laptop battery purchase on the defense council, justifying their procurement process as too convoluted. Thus the quandary continues, circling around the conflicts of legal fairness and reasonable demands in an age dominated by technology.
Source: Coindesk
