Sam Bankman-Fried has publicly challenged U.S. District Decide Lewis Kaplan, alleging bias in his legal trial whereas pursuing a brand new trial in federal court docket. The claims observe a current professional se submitting within the Southern District of New York and are available amid broader consideration to judicial recusal in different high-profile circumstances. His statements define particular issues about courtroom conduct and judicial remarks throughout proceedings that led to his conviction.
Sam Bankman-Fried Cites Courtroom Conduct and Pre-Verdict Remarks in Bias Claims
Sam Bankman-Fried acknowledged that Decide Kaplan ought to step apart from his case. He pointed to alleged conduct throughout trial proceedings. In response to his assertion, the decide confirmed clear contempt towards him in entrance of the jury. He additionally claimed that this conduct influenced how the trial unfolded.
As well as, Sam Bankman-Fried referenced feedback attributed to the decide earlier than the decision. He cited a comment suggesting there was enough proof of fraud. He additionally alleged that the decide inspired jurors to succeed in a fast verdict. The assertion talked about pizza and transportation affords throughout the occasion deliberations, which have been accomplished inside a restricted time.
Sam Bankman-Fried confronted a Trump pardon rejection and in contrast his case to developments in Delaware courts. He famous {that a} decide stepped apart from a number of circumstances following allegations of bias. He argued that comparable requirements ought to apply in his state of affairs. In consequence, he requested Decide Kaplan’s recusal from his case.
Submitting for a New Trial Underneath Rule 33
Individually, Sam Bankman-Fried filed a movement in search of a brand new trial in New York federal court docket. The submitting entered the docket on February 10, 2026. He submitted the movement with out authorized illustration from jail. The submission included a memorandum of regulation, a declaration, and a dated cowl letter.
Delaware’s high decide simply stepped apart from three circumstances over alleged bias.
She is accused of liking a LinkedIn submit in regards to the defendant’s defeat in one other case.
But SDNY’s Decide Kaplan continues to preside over my case even after he:
1) “did not cover his disdain” for me from… https://t.co/G9YjDB4f43
— SBF (@SBF_FTX) March 31, 2026
The movement cites Rule 33 of the Federal Guidelines of Prison Process. This rule permits courts to grant a brand new trial if, within the curiosity of justice, they deem it mandatory. In his submitting, Sam Bankman-Fried argued that his trial violated due course of requirements. He claimed that the federal government withheld data that affected his protection.
On the similar time, the submitting stays separate from his attraction within the Second Circuit Courtroom of Appeals. The attraction course of continues independently of the Rule 33 movement. The court docket has not but dominated on the brand new trial request.
Sam Bankman-Fried is presently serving a 25-year jail sentence. A jury dominated in opposition to him in November 2023 on seven counts. These concerned fraud and conspiracy expenses tied to the collapse of FTX, set to distribute $2.2B to prospects beginning right this moment, thirty first March. Prosecutors acknowledged that the case concerned defrauding prospects, lenders, and traders.
Delaware Recusal Developments Add Context
The dispute emerges alongside a separate recusal state of affairs in Delaware. Decide Kathaleen McCormick introduced she would reassign a number of circumstances involving Elon Musk, which erupted as SpaceX considers dropping Robinhood’s IPO. The choice adopted claims from Musk’s authorized staff relating to alleged bias.
The claims centered on a LinkedIn interplay. Attorneys argued that the decide supported a submit referencing Musk’s defeat in a separate case. Decide McCormick denied endorsing the submit.
Though she denied the allegations of bias, she sanctioned the withdrawal of the circumstances. She talked about elevated media protection as one of many elements in her letter. She mentioned that this consideration was prone to intrude with the dispensation of justice. She was additionally assured that different judges might deal with the problems.
