Public
- Public
- Network
- Groups
- Popular
- People

Conversation

Notices

Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 31-Aug-2023 11:14:48 UTC Molly White

Meanwhile, SBF has been refusing to meet with his attorneys because he's dissatisfied with the Internet access and battery life of the laptop that they're provided.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/240/united-states-v-bankman-fried/
#crypto #cryptocurrency #SBF #FTX
In conversation about a year ago from hachyderm.io permalink
Attachments
1. Second, the Government’s proposal to transport Mr. Bankman-Fried to the 500 Pearl Street cellblock two days per week and give him limited access to an internet-enabled laptop for six hours at a time does not compensate for Mr. Bankman-Fried’s otherwise severe lack of access to discovery and means to collaborate with his attorneys. Nor have the cellblock visits been anything like the boon to trial preparation that the Government makes them out to be. As the defense already noted to the Court (ECF No. 228 at 2), during two visits to the cellblock last week, the internet connection was down for over half of the visit—rendering the purpose of the visit largely moot—and slow for the remainder of the time. The computer battery also cannot be charged in the cellblock, an issue the Government proposes to address with a new battery that should last “approximately four hours” (ECF No. 238 at 5)—substantially short of the six-hour length of the cellblock visits. Moreover, when Mr. Bankman-Fried previously handed documents to BOP staff that he intended to review in the cellblock, the documents were never produced to him during his visit. Given these problems, it is hardly “remarkable” that Mr. Bankman-Fried did not wish to go through this process yet again in the absence of some assurance that such visits could actually be productive. But even if the Government’s promises to address these issues are borne out, the cellblock visits can at best provide only a small fraction of the internet
  https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/110/979/023/471/510/932/original/841885e238d282f5.png
- Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 31-Aug-2023 11:14:46 UTC Molly White
  in reply to
  
  "The defendant’s unlimited access to these resources was curtailed solely as a consequence of his own criminal actions while on bail, despite repeated chances to demonstrate that pretrial release was the least restrictive means to assure the safety of the community."
  #crypto #cryptocurrency #SBF #FTX
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  
  Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
- Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 31-Aug-2023 11:14:47 UTC Molly White
  in reply to
  
  The prosecutors, on the other hand, argue that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial does not require a defendant to have constant Internet access.
  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/238/united-states-v-bankman-fried/
  #crypto #cryptocurrency #SBF #FTX
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. While the defendant invokes the Sixth Amendment repeatedly in his letter, he cites no case or other authority standing for the proposition that the Sixth Amendment requires an opportunity for the defendant to build his own spreadsheet, have “constant access to an internet-enabled computer” (Dkt. 228 at 1-2), or use any other particular means for trial preparation, so long as reasonable accommodation is made to permit the defendant to understand and participate in his defense. See Guzman Loera, 24 F.4th at 152-55; Crandall, 748 F.3d at 481; Dettelis, 372 F. App’x at 106 (“[a]lthough pretrial detention . . . undoubtedly makes communication with counsel and 2 The defendant does not, and could not plausibly, contend that the conditions of his confinement have interfered with his ability to consult with his attorneys. Case 1:22-cr-00673-LAK Document 238 Filed 08/29/23 Page 3 of 8 Page 4 preparation for trial more cumbersome, without more, those consequences do not result in an interference of constitutional significance”). This is all the more so here, where the defendant is represented by a team of experienced and able attorneys and supported by no less than seven consulting experts (only to count those for whom the defense has provided notice to the Government), and was on pretrial release for approximately seven months, with unfettered access to discovery and counsel. The defendant’s unlimited access to these resources was curtailed solely as a consequence of his own criminal a
    https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/110/979/131/442/025/973/original/f38ab55425fffc98.png
- Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 31-Aug-2023 11:14:48 UTC Molly White
  in reply to
  
  Props to SBF's lawyers. It can't be easy to argue that your client is being prevented from spending every possible moment preparing his defense, as he needs, while he's decided he'd rather sit in his jail cell than meet with attorneys because the Internet's too slow.
  #crypto #cryptocurrency #SBF #FTX
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- publictorsten (publictorsten@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 31-Aug-2023 11:14:55 UTC publictorsten
  in reply to
  
  @molly0xfff That's a pretty good summary of the term “crypto bro”.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  
  Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
- Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 31-Aug-2023 11:14:57 UTC Molly White
  in reply to
  
  "Rather than taking advantage of every avenue available to review discovery on the eve of trial after having seven months to prepare without restrictions, the defendant appears uninterested in participating in any form of review unless it meets his precise requests, including access to the very application he previously exploited."
  #crypto #cryptocurrency #SBF #FTX
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. As for the defendant’s complaint that he no longer has access to Google Docs, it is plainly reasonable that this means of preparation is no longer available to him. The Court was reluctant to give the defendant access to Google Docs even on pretrial release (Feb. 17, 2023 Tr. at 15-17), but permitted access after defense counsel insisted it was necessary for trial preparation. It was this very access that the defendant exploited to curate what he considered embarrassing material about Caroline Ellison that he leaked to the New York Times. (Aug. 11, 2023 Tr. at 7). It defies logic and common sense that such access would be granted a second time, where BOP policy does not permit it generally, and where the defendant has abused this tool specifically. While the defendant may prefer to create and relay his work product by other methods that were available to him on pretrial release, he has not established that he would be unable to communicate through a combination of more than ten legal and non-legal staff members. Rather than taking advantage of every avenue available to review discovery on the eve of trial after having seven months to prepare without restrictions, the defendant appears uninterested in participating in any form of review unless it meets his precise requests, including access to the very application he previously exploited. Contrary to counsel’s baseless assertion, the failure for the BOP and the USMS to accommodate the defendant’s most preferred means
    https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/110/979/169/197/005/400/original/5d7fc64a055359e5.png

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds