Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcampbell1 | Hacker News Reader

This seems like a reach by the government. He is currently innocent and has the right to prepare a defense. Claiming that everyone other than immediate family is a potential witness seems like a stretch, the kind that ends up with a mistrial.

View on HN

> The condition that a defendant “avoid all contact ... with a potential witness who may testify concerning the offense” is a standard condition. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(B)(v). Indeed, the no-contact condition is routinely imposed in cases in this district. “The no-contact condition set forth in the statute seeks to prevent a defendant from intimidating someone who, by nature of being a victim or a potential witness, is already in a difficult and delicate position.”

Or just reas the brief in full, it is short and a pretty pleasant read.

We will see what the judge decides, but one thing is clear, this case isn’t going to trial for years.

> potential witness who may testify concerning the offense”

That's pretty much everyone he knows from the last 10 years of his life.

If that's really what they want, just say it, don't play semantic games like this.

> don't play semantic games like this.

That's pretty much what a lot of laws are

It's not a semantic game and you couldn't come up with a more direct description. The poster you are referring to is incredibly confused if they think "everyone he has known for the past 10 years" is a more clear description than "potential witnesses"

Come on man, this isn't the first time you've tried to weigh in the case and consider your self an expert in the law only to be proven to be embarrassingly wrong.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34089507

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34089879

There is no overreach here, his agreement lays out who he can and can't contact without lawyers being present. His former employees are very clearly not to be contacted as they will certainly be witnesses in his case.

This isn't some rule they made up for SBF, this is how every court case works. Why are you constantly shilling, and very incorrectly at that, for SBF all the time?

If he really wanted to reach out as a friend then he could have done so on the record via his lawyer as the law allows for.

"his (former) employees" is not "everyone". The argument that employees, especially those he would have direct contact with, also are likely candidates to be witnesses doesn't seem that odd?

It is everyone he knew relevant to proving his innocence. Is he allowed a defense at all, or should this just be done Chinese style?

How is "you need to involve legal counsel and keep conversations on the record if you want to talk to people to prepare your defense" the "chinese style"? And if he needs company records etc, he can request them without privately messaging former employees.

Whose council needs to be cc’d on the communications? How do you contact people other than WhatsApp or Signal when people are all international and had their email accounts cancelled.

Is "I only have their phone numbers, how could someone who is not me ever find a way of contacting them" a serious question?

"In the presence of counsel" doesn't mean they're cc'd on electronic messages.

If the people he wants to talk to are overseas, SBF can give his counsel their contact details, and have them arrange for a local lawyer to be on the spot.

This reminds me a lot of the pattern Darrell Brooks Jr. used frequently while representing himself in the well publicized trial last year.

To summarize the pattern:

Brooks: "I want to do <thing>"

Judge: "You can't do <thing>, because <we're not at that phase yet | we're past that phase | that's not actually a thing you can do in court>"

Brooks: "So I can't defend myself?"

Brooks' response expands a specific constraint into being completely restrained from defending himself. Your statement seems to be applying the same logic. I don't think that logic is particularly sound.

A defendant being unwilling to follow court process and procedure is in no way the court restricting that defendant's right to defend themselves.

Sounds similar to Alex Jones's antics in court.

He can talk to anyone he likes - in the presence of counsel. He's not allowed to slither around on Signal intimidating or bribing potential witnesses.

I'm really surprised he's not in jug!

Some cursory research indicates nothing particularly unusual about restricting the defendant's contact with witnesses.

>He is currently innocent

That's not how reality works. He's guilty or innocent already, and what happens at trial won't change that. He's entitled to a legal presumption of innocence, same as any defendant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com