"What is clear -- regardless of whether the defendant was the first source for stories regarding Ellison -- is that the defendant, rather than deny his guilt as he correctly now says it is his right to do, shared materials with the press obviously designed to intimidate, harass, and embarrass someone he knows is slated to testify against him, and to provoke an emotional response in potential jurors and color a potential jurors view of that witness."

"In support of its argument, the defense purports to attach an expert affidavit . . . discussing the constitutional considerations implicated by detaining Mr. Bankman-Fried on the current record. (Dkt. 185 at 2). The so-called expert affidavit is, in substance, an amicus brief filed without a request for leave to do so, written by a professor who is affiliated with the law firm representing the defendants father in connection with the Governments investigation."

That's Larry Tribe, once considered an authority on First Amendment issues.

"For example, in an attempt to cast the defendants conduct as protected expression rather than an effort to subvert the integrity of the judicial process, the declarant writes: Mr. Bankman-Fried has a constitutional right -- when sought out by reporters for his perspective on stories they are writing -- to avoid projecting a false image of someone who is media-shy or, worse, someone whose consciousness of guilt makes him shun the media rather than being forthcoming. (Dkt. 185-1 at 8)"

SBF as "media shy". Indeed.