SBF stumbles in error-ridden trial push as judge tells his mother to step aside

A federal judge who presided over the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried expressed skepticism the former billionaire was following the law in his seemingly error-riddled push for a new trial.

In a Monday letter, Judge Lewis Kaplan noted Bankman-Fried was purportedly representing himself as he seeks a redo of the criminal trial that ended with a speedy conviction and a 25-year prison sentence.

At the same time, however, Bankman-Fried had never formally parted ways with three attorneys who have represented him in the years since his 2023 trial.

“Defendants in criminal cases have the right to represent themselves — i.e., to act pro se — or to be represented by counsel,” Kaplan wrote. “They do not have the right to do both at the same time.”

In his sternly-worded two-page letter, Kaplan ordered Bankman-Fried to state, under penalty of perjury, whether attorneys had helped him draft his request for a new trial.

It is the latest legal technicality to stymie Bankman-Fried’s long shot attempt to reverse his conviction and 25-year prison sentence. It comes just one week after Politico reported that his naked attempts to earn a pardon from President Donald Trump had fallen flat among pro-crypto lawmakers.

In February, Bankman-Fried requested a new trial, citing “newly discovered evidence.”

That evidence includes an affidavit in which a former colleague said he would have testified on Bankman-Fried’s behalf in 2023 had prosecutors not threatened retaliation.

Crypto attorney Carl Volz said the request was doomed to fail.

“I can’t recall having seen that win a case for a new trial — ever,” Volz told DL News. “It’s sort of a knee jerk, ‘I lost, I shouldn’t have lost, it’s not fair, it ain’t right’ kind of thing, which is not a strong argument.”

In a curious twist, Bankman-Fried said he would be representing himself going forward.

“The lawyers he was using at trial are expensive, and while his family has some money, it’s a lot of money to file a new motion,” Volz said.

“If he knows it’s a long shot, then why pay 50 grand or 100 grand to somebody to make a long shot argument when you could just do it yourself?”

But the request was filed by his mother, Stanford University professor Barbara Fried. In a cover letter accompanying her son’s request, she said she was submitting the documents because he is currently imprisoned.

Prosecutors have opposed the request. On March 12, Barbara Fried filed another document on her son’s behalf, this one requesting additional time to respond to prosecutors. Again, she cited the challenge of submitting court documents from prison.

Kaplan wasn’t having it.

“The Court of course understands that Ms. Fried is the defendant’s mother, was trained and practiced as a lawyer, and has taught at Stanford Law School,” he wrote. “Nevertheless, with no disrespect, she lacks standing to file papers or seek relief in this case.”

Bankman-Fried submitted a letter making the same request. But its authenticity was quickly disputed by prosecutors.

First, the letter was sent by mail carrier FedEx — a service that inmates aren’t allowed to access, according to prosecutors.

Second, while it was purportedly sent from a prison in the Los Angeles neighborhood of San Pedro, FedEx tracking information shows it was picked up and shipped from Palo Alto or Menlo Park, California — cities that abut the Stanford campus in northern California.

Kaplan said those facts “enhanced” his concern as to the legality of Bankman-Fried’s filings, though he declined to address the issues flagged by prosecutors.

Kaplan gave Bankman-Fried an April 13 deadline to respond to prosecutors and an April 15 deadline to provide an affidavit stating whether attorneys helped him draft his request for a new trial.

Aleks Gilbert is DL News’ New York-based DeFi Correspondent. Reach out to him with tips at aleks@dlnews.com.