Sam Bankman-Fried has publicly challenged U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, alleging bias in his prison trial whereas pursuing a brand new trial in federal courtroom. The claims comply with a latest professional se submitting in the Southern District of New York and are available amid broader consideration to judicial recusal in different high-profile instances. His statements define particular considerations 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 said that Judge Kaplan ought to step apart from his case. He pointed to alleged conduct throughout trial proceedings. According to his assertion, the decide confirmed clear contempt towards him in entrance of the jury. He additionally claimed that this habits influenced how the trial unfolded.
In addition, 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 in the course of 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 instances following allegations of bias. He argued that comparable requirements ought to apply in his state of affairs. As a consequence, he requested Judge Kaplan’s recusal from his case.
Filing for a New Trial Under Rule 33
Separately, Sam Bankman-Fried filed a movement looking for a brand new trial in New York federal courtroom. 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 legislation, a declaration, and a dated cowl letter.
Delaware’s prime decide simply stepped apart from three instances over alleged bias.
She is accused of liking a LinkedIn put up in regards to the defendant’s defeat in one other case.
Yet SDNY’s Judge Kaplan continues to preside over my case even after he:
1) “didn’t hide his disdain” for me from… https://t.co/G9YjDB4f43
— SBF (@SBF_FTX) March 31, 2026
The movement cites Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule permits courts to grant a brand new trial if, in the curiosity of justice, they deem it vital. 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.
At the identical time, the submitting stays separate from his enchantment in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The enchantment course of continues independently of the Rule 33 movement. The courtroom 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 fees tied to the collapse of FTX, set to distribute $2.2B to customers beginning right now, thirty first March. Prosecutors said 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. Judge Kathaleen McCormick introduced she would reassign a number of instances involving Elon Musk, which erupted as SpaceX considers dropping Robinhood’s IPO. The determination adopted claims from Musk’s authorized crew relating to alleged bias.
The claims centered on a LinkedIn interplay. Attorneys argued that the decide supported a put up referencing Musk’s defeat in a separate case. Judge McCormick denied endorsing the put up.
Although she denied the allegations of bias, she sanctioned the withdrawal of the instances. She talked about elevated media protection as one of many elements in her letter. She stated that this consideration was more likely to intrude with the dispensation of justice. She was additionally assured that different judges may deal with the problems.
