Hacker News Reader

Comment by seabass-labrax | Hacker News Reader

I too am confused. Is it not the barrister's job to respond on behalf of the accused? Presumably Sam Bankman-Fried was not actually obliged to read anything aloud (except of course the court's oath), and just chose to for some reason.

View on HN

Sam Bankman-Fried was tried in the US, where we don't have barristers. You may find yourself less confused if you brush up on the basics of the American legal system.

He was being cross examined, so he was certainly obliged to answer the questions put by the prosecutor, just as any other witness would be.

Answering a question, does not mean "take this paper and read it out loud".

It's completely standard to ask witnesses to do this. You can watch any number of trials where this happens.

Outside of TV shows, which are fiction, and theater, I have not seen this.

Here are some examples showing that is common practice (some from transcripts of real trials in the US):

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/testifying-trial-how... (search for "would you read the first paragraph")

https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2016/09/4... (search for "would you read the part")

https://www.patrickmalonelaw.com/useful-information/legal-re... (search for "would you read")

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6141/index... (search for "would you read")

https://archive.epic.org/free_speech//cda/lawsuit/transcript... (search for "would you read")

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2023/2023-O... (search for "would you read")

You'll also generally find examples of this if you're willing to sit through long cross-examinations such as e.g. the Murdaugh case.

Weird. Thus seems quite theatrical to me, but I just realised something.

Prior to the 20th century, fewer people could read. And on top of that, you couldn't just copy a sheet of paper easily.

And you wouldn't want jurors to handle evidence much, I suppose.

So I guess in this context it makes more sense. The reading ensures everyone knows what is on the paper, and of couse, since it's been happening for centuries.... it's legit.

Thanks for the urls.

In earlier centuries, one way to avoid a criminal trial was to claim "the benefit of clergy". Members of the clergy (priests, nuns, etc) were supposed to be tried only by their own organizations. The standard test to prove that you were a member of the clergy was to read a passage from a bible. One passage was very commonly chosen for this, so if you wanted to pretend to be clergy, you needed to memorize about 2 paragraphs. In criminal trials, a guilty verdict was followed by 3 possible sentences: flogging, transportation (exile/banishment) to America/Australia, or execution (hanging for peasants, beheading for nobility).

I feel like you don't think his lawyers didn't have a chance to object, they certainly did, then it's up to the judge/laws to say if it's valid to ask the witness to read WHAT THEY HAD WRITTEN. They did not object. He read the paper.

He said in effect, I never said that we would avoid clawbacks, the lawyer made him read a thing HE WROTE that said they would avoid clawbacks.

Theatrical? Maybe.. but also he sat on the stand and lied, they made him tell the truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com