It looks like it is the end of the world for Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the former CEO of FTX, as he suffers a first-world problem we all can empathise with: no internet!

His legal team has made a case for pre-trial release due to the glaring issue of inadequate internet connectivity within the confines of the federal jail.

The crux of their argument revolves around the hindrance this connectivity shortfall poses to their rigorous defense preparation efforts, resulting in a palpable loss of valuable time.

This appeal for pre-trial release, dated 8 September, marks the second such request within a mere week, following the appellate judge's denial of SBF's plea for immediate release on 6 September.

The judge subsequently referred the motion to the next three-judge panel, intensifying the anticipation surrounding SBF's fate.

SBF's legal counsel underscored a critical point in their argument: despite the government's assurances that their client would have access to a laptop on weekdays, from 8 am to 7 pm, these assurances have yet to materialise in practice.

They also pointed to several instances where SBF's access to an internet-equipped laptop was abruptly curtailed due to jail proceedings, adding layers of frustration to their preparation efforts.

The first unsettling incident transpired on 1 September, when SBF was abruptly summoned back to his cell at 2:30pm for a mandatory headcount, costing him a substantial four hours of critical preparation time.

In a disheartening sequel on 6 September, SBF found himself released from his cell only at 11am.

However, when he attempted to access the discovery database, the subpar internet connection played the role of a formidable bottleneck, permitting the review of just a solitary document from the extensive database.

His legal team noted in the filling:

"Despite the Government’s efforts, there does not appear to be a way to solve the internet access problem in the cellblock. That means that Mr. Bankman-Fried has no way to review and search documents in the discovery database or the AWS database before the trial. The defendant cannot prepare for trial with these kinds of limitations."

Since his apprehension in the Bahamas, SBF's legal representatives have diligently pursued a series of appeals, each aimed at securing his pre-trial release.

Nevertheless, the judges entrusted with reviewing these petitions have countered these requests, contending that SBF has, on multiple occasions, contravened the terms of his bail.

Consequently, the prospect of an immediate release continues to elude him.

Attorneys For SBF & DOJ Filed Proposed Jury Questions

With just three weeks remaining before the commencement of SBF’s trial, both his legal team and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have submitted their proposed jury questions.

These inquiries serve a dual purpose: first, to ascertain whether any prospective jurors possess prior knowledge of the case, cryptocurrency matters, or the philosophy of effective altruism, which is purported to have motivated SBF’s wealth accumulation with the intention of charitable giving.

Secondly, they seek to gauge potential juror opinions on issues spanning political contributions, lobbying, and the legal system.

In essence, these proposed questions align closely with conventional practices preceding a jury trial.

They also probe whether the prospective jurors have any prior associations or interactions with the prosecuting and defense attorneys, as well as potential witnesses, although the complete roster of witnesses has yet to be disclosed.

Additionally, the inquiries delve into the backgrounds and occupations of potential jurors, along with their familiarity or direct experiences with FTX and Alameda Research.

These submissions follow the presentation of proposed jury instructions last month, which are intended to guide the jurors in their deliberations during the trial.

The judge commented on the DOJ’s proposed questions:

"The function of the jury is to decide questions of fact. You are the sole judge of the facts and nothing that the Court or the lawyers say or do may encroach in any way on your role as the exclusive fact-finder. When it comes to the law, however, you are to take your instructions from the Court, and you are bound by those instructions. You may not substitute your own notions of what the law is, or what you think it should be."

Notably, jury selection, or voir dire, is a crucial phase of the legal process.

While it typically spans only a few hours in standard cases, the complexity of SBF's trial may necessitate a more extended period, potentially stretching into several days.

During voir dire, the presiding judge will meticulously assess for any overt biases among the potential jurors.

Attorneys on both sides have a limited number of pre-emptive strikes, allowing them to exclude a specific quota of prospective jurors, along with the authority to disqualify any individuals displaying obvious biases.