Key Highlights
- Judge Lewis Kaplan said Barbara Fried could not seek relief on Sam Bankman-Fried’s behalf and extended his reply deadline to March 23.
- Sam Bankman-Fried’s own extension request was later docketed on March 19.
- The request cited SBF’s expected transfer from FCI Terminal Island, which is being shut down over deteriorating infrastructure.
Sam Bankman-Fried has personally asked a Manhattan federal court for more time to respond in his Rule 33 new-trial bid after Judge Lewis Kaplan refused to entertain an extension request made through his mother, Barbara Fried. SBF’s own letter was docketed on March 19 and sought more time because of his expected move from FCI Terminal Island.
Judge reprimands Barbara Fried
The deadline issue escalated days later when Bankman-Fried’s mother, Barbara Fried, tried to seek more time for her son to respond. According to reporting on the court action, Kaplan said Fried is not a member of the court’s bar, had not appeared in the case, and could not use a power of attorney to seek relief from the court on Bankman-Fried’s behalf. The judge also said the court does not accept phone calls from litigants or their family members.
Even so, Kaplan extended the reply deadline to March 23 on his own initiative, giving Bankman-Fried or his lawyers room to formally seek more time if needed. Bloomberg Law reported that Barbara Fried had asked for an extension to April 1, citing her son’s limited access to word processing, legal files, and an expected prison transfer.
That transfer concern aligns with a broader Bureau of Prisons move already underway. The Associated Press previously reported that FCI Terminal Island is being shut because of deteriorating infrastructure, including falling concrete in underground tunnels tied to the prison’s heating system. The facility housed nearly 1,000 inmates, including Bankman-Fried, and officials said transfers to other prisons would take several weeks.
Prosecutor says SBF’s motion fails at every level
The U.S. government on March 11 filed its opposition to Bankman-Fried’s Rule 33 motion, arguing that his request for a new trial should be denied because the witnesses and arguments he now relies on were either already known before trial, legally irrelevant, or unlikely to change the jury’s verdict. Prosecutors said his motion “fails at every level” and argued that post-bankruptcy recoveries by FTX customers do not undo the fraud findings that led to his conviction.
In that filing, prosecutors said the jury had already heard and rejected Bankman-Fried’s solvency-related arguments, and added that the proposed testimony from figures including Daniel Chapsky and Ryan Salame did not qualify as newly discovered evidence under Rule 33. The government also rejected claims that witness decisions not to testify were the result of improper prosecutorial pressure.
Bankman-Fried is currently pursuing both his appeal and his Rule 33 new-trial effort after his 2023 conviction in the FTX fraud case.
Also Read: Netflix’s ‘The Altruists’ Reveals Truth Behind SBF & Ellison’s $8B FTX Crash
