The defense team of Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and former CEO of bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, objected to some of the questions proposed by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to potential jurors in a court filing, claiming that these questions could prejudice the jurors or convince them that Bankman-Fried is guilty before the trial even begins.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s Attorney Objects to Questions Proposed by the US Department of Justice
Mark Cohen, one of Bankman-Fried’s attorneys, stated in the court filing, “In general, the questions proposed by the government prevent potential jurors from providing a full explanation, hinder the defense from discovering potential jury bias, and risk tarnishing the jury by presenting the allegations in a biased manner.”
Cohen emphasized that the defense team’s use of the term ‘alleged’ when describing the crimes Bankman-Fried is accused of is appropriate, as it implies that Bankman-Fried’s fraud is an established fact. Bankman-Fried’s attorney also added that the other questions are quite limited and do not reveal whether potential jurors are predisposed to agree with prosecutors simply because they are part of the federal government or whether they have lost money due to cryptocurrency abuse.
Cohen pointed out that the proposed other questions instruct potential jurors and specifically objected to the 31st question proposed by the US Department of Justice:
Finally, we specifically object to the 31st question, which aims to elicit irrelevant information. The question asks potential jurors whether they or their close friends or relatives have ever been ‘stopped or questioned’ by law enforcement. This question appears to be designed to obtain information about potential jurors’ encounters with law enforcement and disproportionate law enforcement practices that disproportionately affect non-white individuals. Neither race nor police misconduct is relevant to the current case, and this question poses a risk of improperly excluding potential jurors based on race.
The US Department of Justice also Objected to the Defense Team’s Questions
On September 11th, the US Department of Justice and the defense proposed voir dire questions to the judge. The prosecutors from the US Department of Justice objected to the questions proposed by Bankman-Fried’s attorneys a few days later, stating that some of the questions were unnecessarily intrusive regarding potential jurors’ current thoughts on FTX and related companies and the case.
The defense’s objection filed on September 29th argues that some of the proposed questions in the US Department of Justice’s objections appear to be designed to persuade potential jurors to believe specific defense arguments and to bias them against Bankman-Fried before the trial.
