The most unbelievable behavior on cross was described by Tiffany Fong. The prosecutor asked Sam to read a section on "preventing clawbacks", which was a head and then some text underneath. Sam read the text underneath out loud. Then she asked him to read the headline, "Preventing Clawbacks", too. So he said the following: "The first word is 'preventing'. The second word is 'clawbacks'."
If I was on a jury where the defendant pulled that, I would want to go up and punch him in the face. Tiffany was restrained. Her notes said she only wanted to slap him.
Weird. I don't believe he even had an obligation to read any of it.
Unless someone is demonstrating their voice for identification, I cannot see why someone can be compelled to just "read stuff".
An example... a presumed murderer is on the stand. You hand them paper. It says "I murdered someone".
Are they expected to read it?!
And further, as a juror, why would it enrage you to not see him comply? You say on a jury, you'd want to attack the defendant, but at that point you should not believe he is guilty, or innocent!
So, would you be upset if an innocent person, refused to read statements maligning himself?
That's what the judge and your lawyers are for. As you say, you can't randomly ask people to read something. It would have been a document that he wrote, or approved, or something -- something already admitted into evidence. The putative purpose would be to ask SBF more questions about the evidence, which is fair.
Remember that SBF never had to take the stand at all -- he could have pleaded the fifth and not testified; which is almost always the right thing to do. But once he decides to take the stand, the prosecutor gets to ask him questions about all the evidence they've collected -- which includes asking him to read things that he wrote or approved of.
You're not really listening. No, you can't be asked to do cartwheels. But you can be asked to read something relevant to the case from a document that's been submitted as evidence (and thus already been vetted as relevant to the case).
I could try to come up with reasons that this rule is valid. But I guarantee you, EVERYTHING in the legal system has been litigated and discussed ad nauseum, often over hundreds of years. If lawyers for the defense thought that reading relevant evidence out loud was unfair, they would definitely challenge it; and maybe it has been challenged. If SBF's lawyers think that was unfair, they can still challenge it on appeal, saying that it's illegal or unfair or whatever. Regardless of all that, the current rules allow this behavior, and so the judge allows those kinds of questions.
Within those rules, is the prosecution's use of that rule theatrical? Absolutely -- that's their job: to persuade a bunch of normal people, that the person on the stand is guilty. Persuasion of anybody always requires both rhetoric and logic.
You’re not really disagreeing with the person you’re responding to. He finds it absurd that these kinds of theatrics are allowed, and you just explain that they are in fact allowed.
...and the fact that rules for testimony and cross-examination have been developed and challenged adversarially for hundreds of years; so if the really are as absurd as they think, they probably already would have been changed; and in any case, SBF's lawyers still have a chance to change them.
Here's why it seems reasonable to me. Imagine the counterfactual: If the prosecutor wants to ask him questions about that text without having him read it. If she reads him and asks him a question, he can just say "Is that what it says? I don't remember that." Then she has to hand it to him for him to read, point out where she read from, and give him a chance to read it, and then finally ask her question again. And if there is more than one section, or even more than one question on the same section, then the paper has to go back and forth.
If he reads it, then it establishes several things at once: The jury has heard the text that the question is going to be about, the defendant has read the original text and also has access to the context in order to answer questions, and the defendant has verified that what was read is what was written. It makes the whole trial go more smoothly, it's relevant to the trial, and it's not inherently insulting or humiliating (unlike cartwheels or farting on command), and doesn't fundamentally change the outcome of the testimony.
Maybe a real lawyer (or law historian) would have more to say; but in any case, defense lawyers have had hundreds of years to raise objections, and they haven't, so my "Baysean prior" is that there are probably very good reasons for the rule being the way it is.
ETA: Another advantage is that how the defendant reads the document, and their reaction to reading it, is part of the evidence the jury will need to weigh up when forming an opinion of the witness -- as the situation here described showed. And of course, remember that the same thing can be done by the defense to witnesses for the prosecution. It's not a tool that favors only one side or the other.
> And once on the stand, should he do cartwheels, gesture, and mayhap fart upon command?
I mean, maybe? If you claim you can't be the murderer because you were at a cartwheeling convention, you probably will be asked to show that you can do a cartwheel.
The judge will decide if the request is relevant. Your lawyers will object if it isn't.
what are you actually arguing? because he is compelled to answer questions, why is that different from being compelled to read a headline for a question of "did you write that/approve that" etc.
he agreed to take the stand, he agreed to everything. what would the lawyer object with "your honor, they're making him read" lmao
>And further, as a juror, why would it enrage you to not see him comply? You say on a jury, you'd want to attack the defendant, but at that point you should not believe he is guilty, or innocent!
This is a criminal trial, a formal procedure society uses to determine the course of someone's life. Dozens of people, including me, are devoting several weeks of their lives to making a careful determination of guilt or innocence. His entire defense appears to be that he acted at all times "in good faith". He just spent a day on the stand testifying to his good faith efforts to run his company. Then he turns around and cannot even follow the simple requests in the process as we try to determine his guilt or innocence. Where the fuck are his good faith efforts in this testimony? Of course I am not going to actually attack the defendant, but now I have to work extra hard to separate this childish behavior from the actual facts of the case, as I deliberate on the charges.
About reading statements maligning oneself, you are right that a presumed innocent person doesn’t have to do this. But SBF waived that right when he agreed to testify. This is why it’s considered a bad idea to take the witness stand when you are the accused…
I too am confused. Is it not the barrister's job to respond on behalf of the accused? Presumably Sam Bankman-Fried was not actually obliged to read anything aloud (except of course the court's oath), and just chose to for some reason.
Sam Bankman-Fried was tried in the US, where we don't have barristers. You may find yourself less confused if you brush up on the basics of the American legal system.
Weird. Thus seems quite theatrical to me, but I just realised something.
Prior to the 20th century, fewer people could read. And on top of that, you couldn't just copy a sheet of paper easily.
And you wouldn't want jurors to handle evidence much, I suppose.
So I guess in this context it makes more sense. The reading ensures everyone knows what is on the paper, and of couse, since it's been happening for centuries.... it's legit.
In earlier centuries, one way to avoid a criminal trial was to claim "the benefit of clergy". Members of the clergy (priests, nuns, etc) were supposed to be tried only by their own organizations. The standard test to prove that you were a member of the clergy was to read a passage from a bible. One passage was very commonly chosen for this, so if you wanted to pretend to be clergy, you needed to memorize about 2 paragraphs. In criminal trials, a guilty verdict was followed by 3 possible sentences: flogging, transportation (exile/banishment) to America/Australia, or execution (hanging for peasants, beheading for nobility).
I feel like you don't think his lawyers didn't have a chance to object, they certainly did, then it's up to the judge/laws to say if it's valid to ask the witness to read WHAT THEY HAD WRITTEN. They did not object. He read the paper.
He said in effect, I never said that we would avoid clawbacks, the lawyer made him read a thing HE WROTE that said they would avoid clawbacks.
Theatrical? Maybe.. but also he sat on the stand and lied, they made him tell the truth.
If I was on a jury where the defendant pulled that, I would want to go up and punch him in the face. Tiffany was restrained. Her notes said she only wanted to slap him.