“This seems like a clear public relations move,” noted Joshua Naftalis, a former prosecutor who now works with Paras Partners. “It’s a clever strategy.”
As of now, Bankman Fried hasn’t made an official request for a pardon, according to a White House spokesperson. They mentioned, “We don’t comment on speculation about sensitive matters like pardons.”
The crux of Mr. Bankman Freed’s appeal revolves around a key point. Judge Lewis Kaplan, they argue, didn’t allow the jury to see the complete evidence since the defense couldn’t introduce information that might weaken the prosecution’s position.
Bankman Freed’s legal team claimed, “The judge favored the prosecution at every turn,” emphasizing in their written statement. They argued it led to a biased trial where false information was presented by the government, while crucial evidence was withheld from the jury, and legal instructions were misapplied, essentially steering towards a guilty verdict.
On November 4, one of Bankman Freed’s lawyers, Alexandra Shapiro, will also be representing him in his appellate case. She, along with Sean “Diddy” Combs and entrepreneur Charlie Jarvis, presented these arguments to a panel in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Some judges reportedly expressed skepticism regarding the fairness of Bankman Freed’s trial, with one commenting that the legal team focused more on criticizing Judge Kaplan than on the actual case merits.
Doubtless, they considered pointing out Judge Kaplan’s discretionary actions,” said Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University and former federal prosecutor. “However, it appears they made a calculated decision that this was one of the few viable angles.”
Both Naftalis and Richman advised caution in predicting the appeal’s outcome based on judges’ comments during oral arguments. The general likelihood of success in criminal appeals tends to be quite low, often ranging from approximately 5% to 10%. Moreover, the specifics that Bankman Freed is emphasizing regarding judicial discretion can be particularly challenging to argue convincingly.
