The post US Department of Justice Prevails in Denying Bail for Sam Bankman-Fried: Analyzing the Implications appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

After the initial rejection of the plea of bail, the defendant’s counsel, Sam Bankman-Fried, once again requested the US Department of Justice for the “Temporary Release” of the defendant, as it is necessary to prepare defense statements.

Applicable Law

In opposition to the request, the United States Attorney presented its arguments to the U.S. Department of Justice. In its arguments, the plaintiff states that it is valid and applicable law for the “temporary release” of the defendant to prepare his statements. 

“When a defendant has been ordered detained pending trial, the “judicial officer may, by a subsequent order, permit the temporary release of the person, in the custody of the United States marshal or another appropriate person, to the extent that the judicial officer determines such release to be necessary for the preparation of the person’s defense or another compelling reason.”

Arguments as to Why the “Temporary Release” Must be Denied

The U.S. Attorney argued that the defendant’s straightforward claim that he cannot “participate meaningfully in his defense” without being released to the custody of his counsel and a private security guard throughout the trial is inadequate to prove that release is “necessary.” 

The Ld. Counsel also asserts that, given the defendant’s historical pattern of behavior, the defendant’s reasons do not outweigh the risk of evidence tampering presented by the release of the SBF.

The Council of the States also strongly argues that the defendant “had extensive access to most of the ESI 7-1/2 months before his bail was revoked shortly before trial.”

It states that during the time SBF was out, he had “extensive access to telephone and the Internet” and “faced no impediments” to “explore the discovery and make whatever other investigations he wished by electronic means.”

Lacuna of the Renewed Motion

The Renewed Motion contains the same lacuna, i.e., the same grounds on which the Ld rejected the previous motion of “temporary release” of the defendant. Court. The defendant has subsequently, once again, failed to specify what are the “specific materials” that he has been unable to access and requires for preparing his defense. 

The defendant’s proposed release to the custody of his attorneys and then to “a security guard in a temporary residence in New York City” is not only in violation of the legal requirements of Section 3142(i), but it also fails to adequately address the specific safety concerns the defendant’s release raises.

Decision – 

As a result, the respected Judge Kaplan has rejected the defendant’s Renewed Motion for the “temporary release” of Sam Bankman-Fried.

---

Filed under: Bitcoin - @ September 28, 2023 4:08 am