Prosecutors object to SBF’s lengthy jury selection queries

U.S. prosecutors state FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried has proposed extensive and intrusive jury questions for his upcoming fraud trial.

On Sept. 15, prosecutors from the Southern District of New York requested the judge overseeing the upcoming criminal trial to reject the defense’s proposed questions for the voir dire, the preliminary juror screening before the trial. They argue that these questions might extend the selection timeframe and bias jurors toward the defense’s client.

“The defendant’s proposed voir dire contains numerous unnecessary and time-consuming questions, often soliciting open-ended discussion, as well as questions that are repetitive, prejudicial, and argumentative.”

Prosecutors from the Southern District of New York

Earlier last week, both parties presented their proposed questions for prospective jurors, with significant similarities, particularly regarding potential connections to individuals involved in the case or preconceived opinions about the outcome.

Nevertheless, the prosecution has expressed discontent with a series of open-ended questions from SBF’s legal team. These questions, which inquire if jurors can disregard previous media coverage of the case if chosen, were labeled as “unnecessarily intrusive” by the government.

They further noted that having prior knowledge of the case does not automatically disqualify a potential juror.

Amid these developments, SBF has been actively seeking leniency from the court to facilitate better preparations for his impending trial. Despite numerous requests for temporary release to aid in trial preparations, Judge Kaplan, overseeing the case, denied the request on Sept. 13.

The judge also clarified that SBF does not have the right to access every piece of evidence compiled against him.

This ruling comes after SBF’s legal team argued that the recent addition of millions of pages of evidence by the prosecutors, just weeks before the trial, hampers SBF’s chances of a fair trial.

They contend that this move is unjust and restricts SBF’s ability to prepare his defense adequately.