SBF Lawyers Again Ask for Pre-Trial Release Because Prison Internet Sucks – Decrypt

The Importance of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Renewed Calls for Early Release to Prepare for Legal Case

The internet in federal jail is apparently not very reliable, and that is prompting Sam Bankman-Fried’s (SBF) legal team to renew their calls to secure him early release so that he may better prepare for his upcoming legal case.

In a filing submitted to a federal judge on Friday, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers said that their client is not being provided adequate access to the internet to review documents as part of his defense. After being taken into custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Manhattan, the lawyers argue that they have “lost time to effectively prepare for trial” because conditions at the jail hamper the defense’s preparations.

“We therefore respectfully reiterate our request that the court order Mr. Bankman Fried’s temporary release,” wrote his attorneys.

This request follows an earlier one filed on September 5 that outlined various ways conditions in the correctional facility are creating obstacles for Bankman-Fried’s defense.

Limited Internet Access and Logistical Nightmare

According to his lawyers, the government assured them that SBF would have access to a laptop on weekdays from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m., but those hours haven’t been granted in practice. In one instance on September 1, the lawyers said SBF was called back to his cell at 2:30 p.m. for a headcount, which cost him four hours of preparation.

In another instance on September 6, they said SBF was not released from his cell until 11 a.m. Beyond being released late, the lawyers said SBF could hardly access the internet, and lost more time just trying to upload a single document to their database for discovery material.

“Despite the government’s efforts, there does not appear to be a way to solve the internet access problem in the cellblock,” wrote SBF’s lawyers. “The defendant cannot prepare for trial with these kinds of limitations.”

The sheer volume of material in the FTX has proven to be a logistical nightmare for the defense. On August 28, federal prosecutors shared about four million pages in documents, a load the defense lamented would be too much to review—even if they had “unlimited review time” ahead of the first expected trial on October 3.

Complicating the matter is the defense’s contention that SBF is the only one with complete knowledge of the companies and facts in question.

Initially, SBF was allowed to prepare for his defense from his parents’ home in Palo Alto, California albeit with some restrictions on his internet access. However, the judge in his case ordered him incarcerated on August 11 over prosecutors’ concerns about possible witness tampering.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The issues highlighted in the article are related to the defendant’s access to the internet and the impact it has on his ability to prepare for his legal case. This aligns with SDG 16, which focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.

The article highlights the defendant’s lawyers’ concerns about the lack of adequate access to the internet, which hampers their ability to prepare for trial. This relates to Target 16.3, which emphasizes equal access to justice for all. Additionally, the lawyers argue that the conditions at the jail hinder the defense’s preparations, indicating a need for effective and transparent institutions, as stated in Target 16.6.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for Target 16.3: Proportion of population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism.
• Indicator for Target 16.6: Existence of independent national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles.

The article does not explicitly mention any indicators related to the identified targets. However, the lack of adequate access to the internet and the impact on the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial can be considered as an obstacle to equal access to justice, which is an aspect of Indicator 16.3. The conditions at the jail and the defense’s concerns about preparations also highlight the need for effective and transparent institutions, which can be measured by Indicator 16.6.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: decrypt.co

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.