5 ms·

The most unbelievable behavior on cross was described by Tiffany Fong. The prosecutor asked Sam to read a section on "preventing clawbacks", which was a head a

by tacon 3y ago

The most unbelievable behavior on cross was described by Tiffany Fong. The prosecutor asked Sam to read a section on "preventing clawbacks", which was a head and then some text underneath. Sam read the text underneath out loud. Then she asked him to read the headline, "Preventing Clawbacks", too. So he said the following: "The first word is 'preventing'. The second word is 'clawbacks'." If I was on a jury where the defendant pulled that, I would want to go up and punch him in the face. Tiffany was restrained. Her notes said she only wanted to slap him.

b112 3y ago
Weird. I don't believe he even had an obligation to read any of it. Unless someone is demonstrating their voice for identification, I cannot see why someone can be compelled to just "read stuff". An example... a presumed murderer is on the stand. You hand them paper. It says "I murdered someone". Are they expected to read it?! And further, as a juror, why would it enrage you to not see him comply? You say on a jury, you'd want to attack the defendant, but at that point you should not believe he is guilty, or innocent! So, would you be upset if an innocent person, refused to read statements maligning himself?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  I too am confused. Is it not the barrister's job to respond on behalf of the accused? Presumably Sam Bankman-Fried was not actually obliged to read anything aloud (except of course the court's oath), and just chose to for some reason.
  - foldr 3y ago
    He was being cross examined, so he was certainly obliged to answer the questions put by the prosecutor, just as any other witness would be.
    - b112 3y ago
      Answering a question, does not mean "take this paper and read it out loud".
      - foldr 3y ago
        It's completely standard to ask witnesses to do this. You can watch any number of trials where this happens.
        b112 3y ago
        Outside of TV shows, which are fiction, and theater, I have not seen this.
        foldr 3y ago
        Here are some examples showing that is common practice (some from transcripts of real trials in the US): https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/testifying-trial-how-prepare-how-succeed https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/testifying-trial-how... (search for "would you read the first paragraph") https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2016/09/4ExaminingWitnesses2.pdf https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2016/09/4... (search for "would you read the part") https://www.patrickmalonelaw.com/useful-information/legal-resources/attorneys/legal-resources-attorneys-injured-clients/cross-examination-transcripts/randy-kinnard-cross-examination-of-an-orthopedic-surgeon-expert-witness-on-standard-of-care-issues/ https://www.patrickmalonelaw.com/useful-information/legal-re... (search for "would you read") https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6141/index.do https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6141/index... (search for "would you read") https://archive.epic.org/free_speech//cda/lawsuit/transcript_3_22.1.html https://archive.epic.org/free_speech//cda/lawsuit/transcript... (search for "would you read") https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2023/2023-Ohio-3715.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2023/2023-O... (search for "would you read") You'll also generally find examples of this if you're willing to sit through long cross-examinations such as e.g. the Murdaugh case.
  - avree 3y ago
    Sam Bankman-Fried was tried in the US, where we don't have barristers. You may find yourself less confused if you brush up on the basics of the American legal system.
- gwd 3y ago
  That's what the judge and your lawyers are for. As you say, you can't randomly ask people to read something. It would have been a document that he wrote, or approved, or something -- something already admitted into evidence. The putative purpose would be to ask SBF more questions about the evidence, which is fair. Remember that SBF never had to take the stand at all -- he could have pleaded the fifth and not testified; which is almost always the right thing to do. But once he decides to take the stand, the prosecutor gets to ask him questions about all the evidence they've collected -- which includes asking him to read things that he wrote or approved of.
  - b112 3y ago
    And once on the stand, should he do cartwheels, gesture, and mayhap fart upon command? He must answer questions, I find it bizarre he must read anything aloud, even if he wrote it. This is pure theatrics. I wonder where his lawyer was.
    - gwd 3y ago
      You're not really listening. No, you can't be asked to do cartwheels. But you can be asked to read something relevant to the case from a document that's been submitted as evidence (and thus already been vetted as relevant to the case). I could try to come up with reasons that this rule is valid. But I guarantee you, EVERYTHING in the legal system has been litigated and discussed ad nauseum, often over hundreds of years. If lawyers for the defense thought that reading relevant evidence out loud was unfair, they would definitely challenge it; and maybe it has been challenged. If SBF's lawyers think that was unfair, they can still challenge it on appeal, saying that it's illegal or unfair or whatever. Regardless of all that, the current rules allow this behavior, and so the judge allows those kinds of questions. Within those rules, is the prosecution's use of that rule theatrical? Absolutely -- that's their job: to persuade a bunch of normal people, that the person on the stand is guilty. Persuasion of anybody always requires both rhetoric and logic.
      - School-Cotton 3y ago
        You’re not really disagreeing with the person you’re responding to. He finds it absurd that these kinds of theatrics are allowed, and you just explain that they are in fact allowed.
- tacon 3y ago
  >And further, as a juror, why would it enrage you to not see him comply? You say on a jury, you'd want to attack the defendant, but at that point you should not believe he is guilty, or innocent! This is a criminal trial, a formal procedure society uses to determine the course of someone's life. Dozens of people, including me, are devoting several weeks of their lives to making a careful determination of guilt or innocence. His entire defense appears to be that he acted at all times "in good faith". He just spent a day on the stand testifying to his good faith efforts to run his company. Then he turns around and cannot even follow the simple requests in the process as we try to determine his guilt or innocence. Where the fuck are his good faith efforts in this testimony? Of course I am not going to actually attack the defendant, but now I have to work extra hard to separate this childish behavior from the actual facts of the case, as I deliberate on the charges.
- rmk 3y ago
  About reading statements maligning oneself, you are right that a presumed innocent person doesn’t have to do this. But SBF waived that right when he agreed to testify. This is why it’s considered a bad idea to take the witness stand when you are the accused…

by tacon 3y ago

b112 3y ago

Weird. I don't believe he even had an obligation to read any of it. Unless someone is demonstrating their voice for identification, I cannot see why someone can be compelled to just "read stuff". An example... a presumed murderer is on the stand. You hand them paper. It says "I murdered someone". Are they expected to read it?! And further, as a juror, why would it enrage you to not see him comply? You say on a jury, you'd want to attack the defendant, but at that point you should not believe he is guilty, or innocent! So, would you be upset if an innocent person, refused to read statements maligning himself?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seabass-labrax 3y ago
I too am confused. Is it not the barrister's job to respond on behalf of the accused? Presumably Sam Bankman-Fried was not actually obliged to read anything aloud (except of course the court's oath), and just chose to for some reason.
- foldr 3y ago
  He was being cross examined, so he was certainly obliged to answer the questions put by the prosecutor, just as any other witness would be.
  - b112 3y ago
    Answering a question, does not mean "take this paper and read it out loud".
    - foldr 3y ago
      It's completely standard to ask witnesses to do this. You can watch any number of trials where this happens.
      - b112 3y ago
        Outside of TV shows, which are fiction, and theater, I have not seen this.
        foldr 3y ago
        Here are some examples showing that is common practice (some from transcripts of real trials in the US): https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/testifying-trial-how-prepare-how-succeed https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/testifying-trial-how... (search for "would you read the first paragraph") https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2016/09/4ExaminingWitnesses2.pdf https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2016/09/4... (search for "would you read the part") https://www.patrickmalonelaw.com/useful-information/legal-resources/attorneys/legal-resources-attorneys-injured-clients/cross-examination-transcripts/randy-kinnard-cross-examination-of-an-orthopedic-surgeon-expert-witness-on-standard-of-care-issues/ https://www.patrickmalonelaw.com/useful-information/legal-re... (search for "would you read") https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6141/index.do https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6141/index... (search for "would you read") https://archive.epic.org/free_speech//cda/lawsuit/transcript_3_22.1.html https://archive.epic.org/free_speech//cda/lawsuit/transcript... (search for "would you read") https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2023/2023-Ohio-3715.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2023/2023-O... (search for "would you read") You'll also generally find examples of this if you're willing to sit through long cross-examinations such as e.g. the Murdaugh case.
- avree 3y ago
  Sam Bankman-Fried was tried in the US, where we don't have barristers. You may find yourself less confused if you brush up on the basics of the American legal system.
gwd 3y ago
That's what the judge and your lawyers are for. As you say, you can't randomly ask people to read something. It would have been a document that he wrote, or approved, or something -- something already admitted into evidence. The putative purpose would be to ask SBF more questions about the evidence, which is fair. Remember that SBF never had to take the stand at all -- he could have pleaded the fifth and not testified; which is almost always the right thing to do. But once he decides to take the stand, the prosecutor gets to ask him questions about all the evidence they've collected -- which includes asking him to read things that he wrote or approved of.
- b112 3y ago
  And once on the stand, should he do cartwheels, gesture, and mayhap fart upon command? He must answer questions, I find it bizarre he must read anything aloud, even if he wrote it. This is pure theatrics. I wonder where his lawyer was.
  - gwd 3y ago
    You're not really listening. No, you can't be asked to do cartwheels. But you can be asked to read something relevant to the case from a document that's been submitted as evidence (and thus already been vetted as relevant to the case). I could try to come up with reasons that this rule is valid. But I guarantee you, EVERYTHING in the legal system has been litigated and discussed ad nauseum, often over hundreds of years. If lawyers for the defense thought that reading relevant evidence out loud was unfair, they would definitely challenge it; and maybe it has been challenged. If SBF's lawyers think that was unfair, they can still challenge it on appeal, saying that it's illegal or unfair or whatever. Regardless of all that, the current rules allow this behavior, and so the judge allows those kinds of questions. Within those rules, is the prosecution's use of that rule theatrical? Absolutely -- that's their job: to persuade a bunch of normal people, that the person on the stand is guilty. Persuasion of anybody always requires both rhetoric and logic.
    - School-Cotton 3y ago
      You’re not really disagreeing with the person you’re responding to. He finds it absurd that these kinds of theatrics are allowed, and you just explain that they are in fact allowed.
tacon 3y ago
>And further, as a juror, why would it enrage you to not see him comply? You say on a jury, you'd want to attack the defendant, but at that point you should not believe he is guilty, or innocent! This is a criminal trial, a formal procedure society uses to determine the course of someone's life. Dozens of people, including me, are devoting several weeks of their lives to making a careful determination of guilt or innocence. His entire defense appears to be that he acted at all times "in good faith". He just spent a day on the stand testifying to his good faith efforts to run his company. Then he turns around and cannot even follow the simple requests in the process as we try to determine his guilt or innocence. Where the fuck are his good faith efforts in this testimony? Of course I am not going to actually attack the defendant, but now I have to work extra hard to separate this childish behavior from the actual facts of the case, as I deliberate on the charges.
rmk 3y ago
About reading statements maligning oneself, you are right that a presumed innocent person doesn’t have to do this. But SBF waived that right when he agreed to testify. This is why it’s considered a bad idea to take the witness stand when you are the accused…