How many days or parts of days will he testify?
I will not resolve "Other"
I will create options 0-9 and then add more as time goes by.
Only in the current trial. Not a retrial or later one. Not including sentencing.
I will not resolve Other, don't pick it.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ267 | |
| 2 | Ṁ238 | |
| 3 | Ṁ229 | |
| 4 | Ṁ116 | |
| 5 | Ṁ16 |
Based on the transcript of yesterday it seems to me that with or without the jury present, Sam Bankman-Fried was on the stand.
@Ernie Whenever you decide, can you clarify here whether you’ll be considering what happened today as a day of testimony? (I see you’re also considering the issue in another market.) Thanks!
@d__b it appears not based on what the consensus is on the other market. I'm still waiting for a clear definition exactly distinguishing "testimony" from "hearing in the courtroom on the stand". But it does make some logical sense to treat testimony as when he speaks as officially part of the trial including jury.
@Ernie I think FRE 104 indicates that what happened today is “testimony.”
104 (a) and (c) say that a hearing on a “preliminary question,” including a question of admissibility, must be conducted “so that the jury cannot hear it.” 104(d) then says, emphasis mine, that “by testifying on a preliminary question, a defendant in a criminal case does not become subject to cross-examination on other issues in the case.”
FWIW I have a law degree and clerked for a federal judge, though never personally practiced criminal law.
@d__ Interesting. Why do you think The NY Times says the testimony has been put on hold (as in, has not happened yet)? Are they confused? (Entirely plausible; I don’t hold them in high esteem.)
@NicoDelon Few possibilities occur to me:
(1) They’re confused or just using the term as shorthand for “testimony before the jury,” even if that’s not a correct application of legal terminology. Not in my betting interest here, but maybe this suggests there is in fact such a lay sense—though it strikes me as at least equally likely a person told “SBF appeared at the witness stand and was examined, then x-examined, in open court” would say he “testified.”
(2) Even though 104 clearly contemplates a “defendant in a criminal case” can “testify[]” outside the presence of the jury, what happened today wasn’t a 104 hearing but some other thing that doesn’t count as “testimony.” I don’t have any alternative guesses, and the description of what happened certainly feels to me like a 104 hearing, but I’m not a criminal-law (or evidence-law) expert.
(3) I’m completely wrong for other reasons I’m not expert enough to perceive..
https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1717603006646980931
"Jury enters. Judge Kaplan: I'm sending you home. You will be getting the case to decide in the first few days of next week. Jury exits."