| After
SBF Got 25
Years Judge
Kaplan Denies
Motion for New
Trial He Tried
to Withdraw
by
Matthew Russell Lee
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
April 28 – On the US v Sam
Bankman-Fried trial, hours
after the guilty verdict, a
book was published: "Crypto
Criminal: The Conviction of
Sam Bankman-Fried: As live
tweeted and investigated from
inside the SDNY courthouse by
Matthew Russell Lee,"
audio/book here.
On March
28, 2024, Inner City Press
live tweeted his sentencing,
to 25 years.
On May 28
Salame was
"sentenced to
90 months."
On
August 21,
Salame filed
that "the
Government
used the plea
negotiations
to threaten
Salame’s
domestic
partner and
the mother of
his child,
Michelle Bond."
Full filing
on Patreon here.
On
February 10,
SBF - via his
monther - filed a
pro se motion
for a new
trial, arguing why
Salame and Daniel
Chapsky did
not testify.
On
March 11 the
US Attorney's
Office filed a
44 page
opposition, full
44 pages
on Patreon here.
Docketed
on March 16, SBF
through
his mother
Barbara Fried
asked for
more time to
reply; she
says SBF will be
moved from
Terminal Island
soon, without
saying to
where or why.
Filing on
Patreon here.
On
March 19,
after Judge
Kaplan admonished
his mother
for the letter
and apparently
a telephone
call to
chambers,
SBF's own
letter was
docketed,
asking for an
extension of
time due to a
move
from Terminal
Island
- letter
on Patreon here
After the
US Attorney's
Office linked
to FedEx to
show his
letter came
from Menlo
Park - as
Inner City
Press first
reported - on
March 23 Judge
Kaplan sua
sponte extended SBF's
time to April
13.
Docketed
on April 22,
SBF's letter
acknowledging
he ran his
submissions by
this parents -
and
saying he is
withdrawing
his Rule 33
motion for a
new trial,
saying "I do
not believe I
will get a
fair hearing
on this in
front of you"
and referring
to his request
to reassign the
case, as well
as his direct
appeal. Filing on
Patreon here.
But on
April 28 Judge
Kaplan went
ahead and
denied his
motion,
writeing that
"Bankman-Fried’s
motion is
based on three
supposedly 'newly
discovered'
witnesses
whose
predicted
testimony, he
contends,
warrants a new
trial. This
contention is
baseless on
multiple
independently
sufficient
levels with
regard to each
of the
witnesses"
- full
order on Patreon
here
More details on X
for Subscribers
here, Substack here
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Mail: Box 130222 NY NY 10013
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
