Molly White's Citation Needed - No new trial for Sam Bankman-Fried

Episode Date: April 29, 2026

The former CEO of FTX has essentially no realistic avenues left to avoid his 25-year prison sentence. Originally published on April 28, 2026.

I'm Molly White, and you're listening to the audio feed for the Citation Needed Newsletter. You can see the text version of the newsletter online at citation needed.news. No new trial for Sam Bankman-Fried. The former CEO of FTX has essentially no realistic avenues left to avoid his 25-year prison sentence. This issue was originally published on April 28, 26. Sam Bankman-Fried is out of options. Judge Lewis Kaplan has denied his motion for a new trial, and in doing so closed off what was likely his last realistic avenue to escape his 25-year prison sentence besides his ongoing appeal to the Second Circuit, which is widely expected to fail. Bankman Freed had tried to withdraw his motion for a new trial, perhaps sensing that things were not poised to go in his favor after repeated questions as to whether his parents were writing his supposedly pro se filings for him.

But Kaplan refused to let him slink away. Instead, he ruled on the merits and used the opportunity to condemn what he describes as Bankman Freed's ongoing calculated campaign to rehabilitate his reputation, one that Bankman Fried outlined in detail before he was even indicted. In February, Bankman Fried, representing himself, submitted a request for a new trial in front of a new judge. But cover letters and phone calls to the judge's chambers by his mother, as well as envelope sent not from Bankmanfried's prison, but from the vicinity of his parents' home, hundreds of

miles away, led Judge Kaplan to order him to file an affidavit under penalty of perjury, stating which lawyers, if any, had been assisting with his supposedly self-drafted filings. Bankmanfried submitted the affidavit as ordered, claiming that no attorneys helped him, but admitting that he had shared drafts with his parents, who, quote, made editorial and organizational suggestions, some of which I incorporated. He ended the affidavit with a rather petulant request to withdraw without prejudice his motion for a new trial. Quote, as I have had to focus on responding to these questions, rather than drafting a response to the prosecution's opposition,

and because I do not believe I will get a fair hearing on this topic in front of you, I am now requesting to withdraw the Rule 33 motion, without prejudice to renewing it after my direct appeal and the related request for reassignment have been ruled upon. Kaplan denied the withdrawal request and ruled on the motion anyway. By denying Bankman Fried's request for withdrawal without prejudice, Kaplan permanently closed this avenue. Bankman Fried cannot try again later with a different judge,

or in a more favorable political climate, if such a thing exists. Kaplan writes that he believes Bankman Fried, quote, wants to retain the right to refile the motion at some later time of his choosing, perhaps after those most familiar with the extensive and complex trial record are no longer available. The PR strategy. Kaplan also slammed Bankman Freed's, quote, planned to rescue his reputation that Bankman Fried hatched and even committed to writing

after FTX declared bankruptcy, but before he was indicted. The Google documents Kaplan mentions were unearthed around the time of Bankman Fried's sentencing and outline a detailed plan to rebuild his reputation by, quote, starting a large PR push involving, quote, going on a bunch of stations. slash podcast, etc. And, quote, starting to tweet actively to, quote, get as much support as possible. He brainstormed a list of, quote, random, probably bad ideas, in his words, to further that goal, including, quote, have Michael Lewis interview me on e.g. ABC.

Radical honesty on Twitter. Just explain exactly what happened in detail. Go on Tucker Carlson. Come out as a Republican. Judge Kaplan outlines how Bankman Free. quote, followed his plan to a remarkable degree, including while on house arrest or incarcerated. But Kaplan writes, quote, time and time again, Bankman Fried has sought to promote his narrative, which he previously described as, quote, this is the reality, here are never before seen facts.

A fatal flaw of that spin and the present motion is that Bankman Fried's so-called facts have been seen before, many times. They in substance are the same, quote, facts that during pretrial motion practice he can were, quote, irrelevant, speculative, and unduly prejudicial. They, in substance, thus, are the same, quote, facts that this court excluded at trial, and that Bankman Fried now argues on appeal to the circuit should have been admitted. In no way are these, quote, facts never before seen, let alone newly discovered. Bankman Fried's arguments.

Kaplan also addresses Bankman Fried's actual arguments for why he deserves a new trial. Under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant can request a new trial even years later if they demonstrate newly discovered evidence that was unavailable during the original trial. Bankman Fried claimed that his new evidence is, quote, testimony that silenced witnesses would have given. He pointed to three witnesses, Nishad Singh, who already testified at trial, but who Bankman Fried claims was threatened by prosecutors, Ryan Salem, who has since tried to recant his guilty plea, and Daniel Chapsky, who refused to testify at the original trial. Kaplan notes that, quote, none of the witnesses, for example, is newly discovered. Benkman Fried well before trial knew all three of them, and purportedly knew also what he hoped they would say were they to testify. On Salem specifically, Kaplan observes that he, quote, recently has claimed through self-serving social media posts and television and podcast,

that the government's case was a lie and that sworn statements he made during his guilty plea allocution were false. But, quote, the evidence on the record before this court makes it clear that it, in fact, is Salem's much belated and now withdrawn attempt to recant that is false. Bankman Fried had also asked Kaplan to recuse himself, claiming bias. Kaplan also denied this request, noting that his recusal wasn't requested until years later, after Bankman Fried, quote, participated in much of the trial after the occurrence, of the events, of which he now complains. Out of options.

At this point, Sam Bankman-Fried has essentially no avenues remaining to him to avoid his 25-year prison term. The odds were against him from the get-go, with his ongoing appeal to the Second Circuit. Federal criminal appeals succeed less than 10% of the time. But things looked even worse after the panel of judges heard oral arguments in Bankman-Fried's case in November 2025. They seemed deeply skeptical of Bankman-Fried's good. go-to claim that FTX was solvent, just not liquid. With Judge Maria Arahu Khan commenting that his,

quote, misrepresentations were not to solvency, but liquidity. Part of the government's theory of the case is that the defendant misrepresented to investors that their money was safe, was not being used in the way that it was the government claims and the jury convicted it was, in fact, used. Judge Barrington Parker was similarly dismissive of another key argument. quote, are you seriously suggesting to us that if your client had been able to testify about the role attorneys played in creating these various documents, the not-guilties would have rolled in, he asked. After exhausting his direct appeal, Bankman Fried could theoretically pursue a habeas petition, which has an even lower success rate and requires showing constitutional violations.

Besides that, his only hope is clemency. But even after interviews with New York Sun and Tucker Carlson, in which Bankman Fried aimed to come out as a secret Republican, months of obsequious Twitter posts praising Donald Trump, direct appeals from his parents via a CNN interview, and ongoing reports of behind-the-scenes parental lobbying via lawyers and Trump associates, Trump has twice said he will not grant a pardon. Thanks for listening to this issue of the citation-needed newsletter. If you would like to support my work with a free or pay-what-you-want subscription to the citation-needed newsletter, or if you would like to receive these issues in your email, go to citation

needed.news. If you enjoyed the podcast version of this episode, please consider leaving a rating or review in your podcast player of choice.