3 ms·

So the "probable cause" is that SBF is meeting with journalists and sharing evidence that might bring into question the credibility of the prosecution's star wi

by dcow 3y ago

So the "probable cause" is that SBF is meeting with journalists and sharing evidence that might bring into question the credibility of the prosecution's star witness? Hmm I thought witness tampering was more serious like trying to pay the witness off or making false accusations or intimidating them something. I mean all this guy's co-conspirators have been bought off by the prosecution to testify against him. I can't help but feel like his action's are at least understandable. Unless he's supposed to save all his ammo for the actual court case and attack the credibility directly there. I'm obviously not a lawyer but I didn't realize such subtle actions were considered witness tampering... wouldn't we want to know all the details about a witness? If there's real reason to be worried about someone's credibility wouldn't we want to know about it? Without knowing better, I'd probably be fighting tooth and nail in whatever way possible to not by martyred alone while my co-conspirators walk with a slap on the wrist because that's how criminal justice works, whether I deserved it or not. EDIT: just to be clear, I'm not making any statement as to whether I agree or disagree with SBF or whatnot. I am just trying to understand what actually happened here and surprised that speaking with journalists falls under witness tampering. TIL.

cmpbl 3y ago
I don't feel strongly on this, but you could read it as an intimidation tactic: I have so much over you that I can print your diaries in the NYT... just see what I have in my pocket if you really cross me.
maxbond 3y ago
> Unless he's supposed to save all his ammo for the actual court case and attack the credibility directly there. Yes, that is how he could attack the credibility of a witness without ending up in hot water. He would have to introduce it into evidence, and hazard the court rejecting it. If it was accepted, then yeah, they could tell the jury about Ellison feeling like she may not be cut out the run Alameda (for all the good that would do, I suspect not very much). If you try to bypass this process unilaterally, then the court isn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

by dcow 3y ago

cmpbl 3y ago

I don't feel strongly on this, but you could read it as an intimidation tactic: I have so much over you that I can print your diaries in the NYT... just see what I have in my pocket if you really cross me.

maxbond 3y ago

> Unless he's supposed to save all his ammo for the actual court case and attack the credibility directly there. Yes, that is how he could attack the credibility of a witness without ending up in hot water. He would have to introduce it into evidence, and hazard the court rejecting it. If it was accepted, then yeah, they could tell the jury about Ellison feeling like she may not be cut out the run Alameda (for all the good that would do, I suspect not very much). If you try to bypass this process unilaterally, then the court isn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt.