Browse sidebar discussions from the Sam Bankman-Fried archive, with links to the exact point in each transcript.
The 18 entries below include every sidebar marked in the court reporter transcripts available to the archive.
Defense counsel discussed the permissible scope of cross-examining a witness about exchanges and markets after characterizing portions of his direct testimony as lay expert testimony.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that cross-examination could proceed but should not repeat direct testimony or include inappropriate questions.
The defense raised a time-zone concern about Exhibit 545, and counsel also asked when to submit letters concerning the next day's testimony.
Court's actionThe judge said the time-zone issue was a subject for cross-examination.
The parties discussed how the jury could consider statements by three participants in a chat exhibit.
Court's actionThe court received Government Exhibit 1619, admitting the defendant’s and Ms. Ellison’s statements for all purposes while limiting the other person’s statements to context rather than their truth.
Counsel disputed whether the defendant was visibly reacting to the witness’s testimony and whether those reactions could affect her.
Court's actionThe judge directed defense counsel to speak with the defendant about any visible reactions, while avoiding doing so before the jury, and said he would monitor the defendant.
The parties disputed whether 23 paragraphs concerning the Alameda-Modulo relationship were relevant or cumulative and whether their probative value was substantially outweighed under Rule 403.
Court's actionThe judge allowed Government Exhibit 39A, and it was received in evidence.
Counsel disputed whether cross-examination could explore the witness's view of an Alameda employee dispute after testimony suggesting the defendant had misled her.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the pending question and one additional question, but no more.
Counsel disputed whether DX-10 or a selected passage was admissible as a business record, evidence of state of mind, or impeachment concerning Caroline Ellison's role at Alameda.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection to admitting DX-10.
Counsel debated whether the witness could be asked whom she consulted about FTX's terms of service and how those discussions affected her understanding.
Court's actionThe judge barred this particular question while limiting the ruling to that question.
The parties disputed whether a low-level employee’s observations about Sam Bankman-Fried’s control were adequately founded or unnecessarily cumulative corroboration.
Court's actionThe judge directed the prosecution to ask about what the witness observed and to move the examination along.
The defense challenged whether Zac Prince had a sufficient factual foundation to compare cryptocurrency lenders and exchanges without offering undisclosed expert opinion.
Court's actionThe judge allowed the existing testimony to stand, directed the witness to address his own understanding and exchanges with which he or BlockFi dealt, and indicated that further foundation was needed.
Defense counsel reported that the defendant had not received his extended-dose Adderall and discussed efforts to reach officials handling the issue.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to contact Gitner and report what was happening.
Counsel discussed limiting an accountant's testimony to tracing funds rather than addressing the nature or validity of political donations.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to proceed and restate the question.
Counsel discussed whether FTX's terms of service could be used beyond their effect on readers and how the provisions could be examined before the jury.
Court's actionThe court received Exhibit 558 on the government's stated limited basis, deferred the defense's request until cross-examination, and instructed that the terms' legal import was, in all likelihood, a question of law for the court rather than the jury.
The parties disputed whether Government Exhibit 514 concerning FTX Digital Markets policies could be used outside its truth and whether its differing entity context would confuse or prejudice the jury.
Court's actionThe judge directed the parties to proceed step by step before admission of the exhibit.
Counsel discussed redacted Signal group names and how to correct a potentially misleading impression about why certain groups were removed.
Court's actionThe judge struck the question and answer about whether prosecutors asked that Signal groups be removed and instructed the jury to disregard them.
Counsel disputed whether an FTX blog post about liquidation systems and clawbacks had a relevant nonhearsay purpose or could support the defense's stated theory.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection to DX-964.
Counsel disputed whether the defendant's statement that he and Nishad Singh had done nothing wrong was admissible under the state-of-mind exception.
Court's actionThe court sustained the hearsay objection.
The parties discussed the purpose and prior disclosure of an audio exhibit and its transcript aid offered during cross-examination.
Court's actionThe court received Exhibits 2508 and 2508-T and instructed the jury that the audio, not the transcript, was evidence.
No sidebars match these filters.