Top related persons:
Top related locs:
Top related orgs:

Search resuls for: "A Former Federal Prosecutor In New York."


5 mentions found


Sam Bankman-Fried's defense attorneys have argued that FTX's collapse is complicated and he didn't know everything. AdvertisementAdvertisementDuring opening statements at Sam Bankman-Fried's trial, it quickly became clear that prosecutors and his defense attorneys had very different approaches. But Bankman-Fried's attorneys may convince jurors that Bankman-Fried genuinely believed his actions were acceptable in the wild-west cryptocurrency industry. The challenge for Bankman-Fried's attorneys is to convince jurors that he didn't know about any wrongdoing. "Sam directed me to," Ellison testified.
Persons: Sam Bankman, They've, , — Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang, Nishad Singh —, Thane Rehn, Rehn, Mark Cohen, Ellison, Cohen, FTX, Crypto, it's, Sam Bankman Fried, Craig Ruttle, Sarah Krissoff, Cozen O'Connor, Fried, Krissoff, Singh, Wang, Paul Tuchmann, Wiggin, Dana, Sam, Caroline Ellison, Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Gary, Sun, He's Organizations: Service, Prosecutors, Alameda Research, Alameda Locations: Manhattan, Washington, Bankman, Alameda, New York, FTX, Bahamas
Sam Bankman-Fried needs to decide soon whether he'll take the witness stand in his criminal trial. AdvertisementAdvertisementCaroline Ellison testified in the trial of her ex-boyfriend, Sam Bankman-Fried JANE ROSENBERGFor that reason, the case against Bankman-Fried rests on the credibility of his alleged co-conspirators. In their own questioning of the cooperating witnesses, prosecutors have encouraged them to be open about taking responsibility for their crimes. Court sketch of Sam Bankman-Fried on the first day of his trial JANE ROSENBERG/ReutersIf Bankman-Fried takes the stand, he'll be cross-examined by prosecutors. If Bankman-Fried takes the stand, prosecutors will almost certainly point to more material and catch him in any contradictions.
Persons: Sam Bankman, he'll, he's, , They're, Fried, Mark Cohen, Lewis Kaplan, who's, Cohen, He's, Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang, Nashad Singh, Sarah Krissoff, Cozen O'Connor, FTX, Mary Altaffer, Kaplan, Paul Tuchmann, Wiggin, Dana, Tuchmann, Adam Yedidia, Fried JANE ROSENBERG, Ellison, Wang, Singh, Bankman, Wang forthrightly, Ellison teared, slovenliness, Prosecutors —, Krissoff, JANE ROSENBERG, hedged, didn't, Judge Kaplan's, SBF Organizations: Service, Defense, US, Alameda Research, Former Alameda Research, AP, Prosecutors, Toyota Corolla, Reuters, ABC News, Alameda . Locations: Manhattan, Alameda, New York, FTX
It’s not surprising to see that federal prosecutors, state prosecutors and New York’s attorney general are reportedly looking into Santos’ deception, and much of the public likely wants to see Santos punished for his duplicity. Yet despite the brazenness and provable nature of Santos’ lies, no one should believe that an indictment is guaranteed. Lying to the public, as Santos has, may be despicable and indefensible, but it is not a crime. Santos’ lies could be a goldmine for establishing intent and impeaching him on cross-examination at trial, and, if he is convicted, enhancing his punishment at sentencing. And there are no obvious state violations or other punishments coming for Santos unless state investigators uncover new facts.
A federal judge sentenced former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes to 11 years and 3 months in prison Friday — too harsh a punishment considering the crime and the defendant. Anyone who claims Holmes received more or less than what she was “supposed to get” does not understand federal sentencing. Federal sentencing can seem arbitrary, but at bottom, it requires a humane and common sense result: Defendants must not be punished more than is absolutely necessary. Most people who are first exposed to federal sentencing — including lawyers — are bewildered by its unpredictability. Anyone who claims Holmes received more or less than what she was “supposed to get” does not understand federal sentencing.
It also shed light on the deficient representation Syed received from his counsel, who was disbarred just a year after Syed’s conviction. A judge in Maryland granted Syed a new trial, and an appellate court upheld that decision. It agreed that the performance of Syed’s trial counsel in investigating the case was unacceptable but concluded that the proof presented against Syed at trial was too strong for that deficiency to have made a difference. They have the right to see the prosecutors’ evidence before trial and to confront their witnesses in court. For convicted defendants like Syed, journalists are often the only remaining hope.
Total: 5