New Interpretation of Behavior During SBF Trial: Autism and Attention Deficit Disorder
Due to Sam Bankman-Fried's autism and attention deficit disorder, the court and jury may have misunderstood his behavior during the criminal trial.Original Title: “SBF's neurodivergence saw him 'misinterpreted' at trial, doctors argue”
Author: Jesse Coghlan, CoinTelegraph
Translation: Wu Zhu, Jinse Finance
A group of doctors stated in a friend-of-the-court brief supporting his appeal that Sam Bankman-Fried's criminal trial may have been compromised due to his neurodivergent condition, leading to "lengthy answers" that frustrated the court.
Eight doctors specializing in neurodivergence told the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on September 20 that the FTX co-founder was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), which "presented serious challenges during the proceedings of this case."
They claimed that multiple rulings were unfavorable to Bankman-Fried due to his neurodivergence, particularly the ruling by the Manhattan District Court that allowed government prosecutors to question him without the jury present before he sat in front of the jury.
This ruling "may have had far-reaching effects," as "the judge repeatedly chastised Mr. Bankman-Fried for his lengthy answers and attempts to clarify or rephrase questions"—the doctors stated, noting that this is characteristic of individuals with autism, as they interpret language literally.
They also claimed that the judge's reprimands later led Bankman-Fried to alter his responses in front of the jury.
"Mr. Bankman-Fried made significant corrections in front of the jury, possibly overcorrecting," they wrote.
"Unlike his responses during cross-examination when the jury was not present, Mr. Bankman-Fried's answers in front of the jury were often very brief, even terse—typically just a simple 'yes.'"
Highlighted excerpts analyze that Bankman-Fried's answers on the first day facing the jury were half just one or two words
Source: CourtListener
The brief noted: "Such brief responses can easily be misinterpreted as arrogance or indifference."
In March of this year, Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding FTX customers of $11 billion, with Judge Lewis Kaplan stating that Bankman-Fried "was evasive, nitpicking, and trying to get the prosecutors to rephrase questions."
Lack of Documents and Medication as "Serious Impairments"
The doctors added that Bankman-Fried's inability to access "a range of FTX documents" and appropriate ADHD medication was also a disadvantage.
"For individuals with ASD, a lack of specific documents can be a serious impairment," they said, adding that in the three weeks leading up to the trial, Bankman-Fried was also "denied ADHD medication, which is necessary for him to maintain focus."
In December 2023, Bankman-Fried (second from right) is on trial at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center
Source: Tiffany Fong
The doctors wrote that if an autistic individual reviews "specific documents and precise wording of company policies, recommendations, emails, etc.," they "can find concrete bases for their answers."
They stated that without these documents, an autistic individual's responses "are often filled with uncertainty" and may appear "uncooperative or evasive."
The brief pointed out that during the initial stages of the trial, when the government presented evidence, Bankman-Fried was also "deprived of the ability to concentrate" because he did not receive the proper dosage of ADHD medication—something his lawyers mentioned during the trial.
The doctors said that Bankman-Fried needed to take extended-release medication in the morning and at noon to maintain focus throughout the day, but he only took half of his previous dosage and "did not take the extended-release medication until late in the trial."
Doctors' brief notes on Bankman-Fried's medication situation during the trial
Source: CourtListener
They added that "failure to provide an effective dosage of ADHD medication severely impacts functioning," and changing the dosage could even "lead to withdrawal symptoms."
Intersection of Criminal and Bankruptcy Cases: Filing
Meanwhile, a group of bankruptcy law professors submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on the same day, neither supporting Bankman-Fried nor the government—raising concerns about the intersection between the FTX bankruptcy case and Bankman-Fried's trial.
They argued that the bankruptcy proceedings of FTX provided assistance to Bankman-Fried's prosecutors, "setting a dangerous precedent that encourages the aggressive use of Chapter 11 proceedings to support parallel criminal prosecutions."
The organization stated that the contribution of FTX's bankruptcy estate to Bankman-Fried's criminal trial was "unusual compared to previous cases," citing the Enron and WorldCom cases from the early 2000s.
Key excerpts from the law professors' brief, claiming that FTX bankruptcy lawyers supported the prosecution of Bankman-Fried
They added that the speed of Bankman-Fried's trial meant that jurors were told: "Repeatedly and inaccurately informed that customers would not recover any funds from FTX."
"However, the defendant did not have the opportunity to provide rebuttal evidence showing that the debtor was never found bankrupt, or that FTX customers might actually receive nearly 150% of their claims," they said.
FTX Asset Management stated in May that it had sufficient funds to repay creditors, plus "billions of dollars in recoveries"—but the value of those funds was equivalent to the asset value at the time of bankruptcy in November 2022.
