Direct and redirect examination of Adam Yedidia across Days 2 and 3. During the defense cross-examination, Sassoon identified a recurring problem with a question, and the court told defense counsel that the problem persisted through each version of it.
Prosecution· United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
Danielle R. Sassoon
Assistant United States Attorney who represented the government in the federal prosecution of Samuel Bankman-Fried.
AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
5,314 lines·54 proceedings
About
Served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the prosecution, conducting direct and redirect examinations of several government witnesses and later presenting arguments about the defendant's knowledge, conduct, and asserted explanations.
On Days 2 and 3, Sassoon examined Adam Yedidia on direct and redirect. During Yedidia's cross-examination, she raised a problem with a defense question, and the court told defense counsel that the same problem remained through each iteration. She examined Caroline Ellison on direct across Days 5 and 6 and on redirect on Day 7, and she conducted Shamel Medrano's direct examination on Day 11.
In argument to the jury, Sassoon emphasized that the government bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and asserted that it had met that burden. She used Government Exhibits 5, 36, and 50 to argue that contemporaneous spreadsheets conflicted with the defendant's account of when he learned about Alameda's special credit treatment and multibillion-dollar liability.
Sassoon also asked jurors to assess the defendant's claimed lack of knowledge against his role, major expenditures, relationships with senior employees, financial materials, and assertedly inconsistent testimony. She argued that later fundraising, public assurances, and November conduct supported knowing participation in concealment even if jurors accepted his alternative timing account. Anticipating the court's instruction, she separately argued that deliberate avoidance of obvious facts about customer deposits, Alameda's treatment, and the fiat-account discrepancy could establish knowing conduct.
Attorney insights (5)
Federal Criminal Trial41
Direct examination of Caroline Ellison on Days 5 and 6, followed by redirect on Day 7.
Direct examination of Shamel Medrano on Day 11.
Supporting record (1)
Argument that the government bore and had met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt. Sassoon asked jurors to compare the defense arguments with the evidence, used spreadsheets to contest the defendant's account of his knowledge, presented an alternative timing theory, and argued conscious avoidance in anticipation of the court's instruction.
Supporting record (1)
In argument to the jury, Sassoon challenged the defendant's account of his knowledge. She relied on Government Exhibits 5, 36, and 50, his role and relationships, major expenditures, financial materials, and asserted inconsistencies in his testimony. She also argued that later fundraising, public assurances, and November conduct supported knowing participation in concealment even under his alternative timing account.
Supporting record (1)
Trial Record (54)
Conducted direct and redirect examinations of Adam Yedidia and Caroline Ellison, as well as Shamel Medrano's direct examination. In argument to the jury, she addressed the government's burden and challenged the defendant's account of his knowledge using financial exhibits, his conduct, and conscious-avoidance reasoning.
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
Day 9
Day 11
Day 12
Day 14
Day 15
Day 16
Day 17
Day 19
No proceedings match this filter.