As the trial date for Sam Bankman-Fried, the ex-CEO of FTX, looms closer, both the defense and the prosecution are locking horns over jury selection criteria. Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, recently dismissed four of the 14 voir dire questions proposed by the defense.
Bankman-Fried, facing seven counts of fraud and money laundering, could spend decades in jail if convicted. Consequently, the contention around jury selection adds another complexity to this high-stakes case.
In a letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan, Williams labeled the defense’s questions as “unnecessary,” “time-consuming,” and often “prejudicial.” Among the questions he opposed were those related to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the philosophical movement of effective altruism.
Bankman-Fried reportedly has ADHD, but Williams called the inquiries into this condition “meaningless and biased.” Additionally, Williams claimed that the effective altruism questions were a thinly veiled attempt by the defense to shape the narrative.
Both sides aim to gauge jurors’ views on cryptocurrency
Interestingly, both parties agree on the need to question potential jurors about their beliefs on cryptocurrency. This unity underlines the significance of crypto views in a case connected with the collapse of a Bitcoin exchange. Bankman-Fried pleaded not guilty to all charges, and his trial is set to begin on October 3rd in New York City.
Besides raising concerns about the defense’s questions, Williams stressed that the government’s inquiries are “standard, neutral, and appropriate.” Hence, it becomes clear that the debate over jury selection is not just about the logistics, but also the underlying biases that could influence the trial’s outcome.
Significantly, Williams also questioned the defense’s queries about political contributions. He stated these are irrelevant, aligning with his stance that the defense’s proposed questions are either off-point or prejudicial.
Moreover, the difference in proposed questions for jury selection showcases the vastly divergent approaches both sides are taking. While the U.S. Attorney’s office aims for neutrality, the defense builds a narrative that could tilt the scales.
The upcoming trial promises to be a significant legal battle and showcase how cryptocurrency, individual conditions like ADHD, and even philosophical beliefs could play roles in modern jurisprudence.
