The defense argued that Bankman-Fried had not committed any missteps meant to impress or badger the witnesses in his criminal trial. In a protest to Judge Lewis Kaplan, the legal representation maintained that two of the most suggestive grounds to deny the bail being looked for by prosecutors held is fantastically slender and unreasonable. Well-intentioned contacting between Bankman-Fried and New York Times press appeared to be no threat nor a way of influencing the peer jury and were anything but sufficient reason beyond what might be expected jail him a long time before his October criminal lawsuit. With respect to the U.S. Department of Justice accusing the moments forward in orderingCaroline Ellison’s diary to The New York Times as a material method for hassling, his counsel posited that the administration was possibly the designer of this sortie entirely. Bankman-Fried had seemed to lay a wariness in regards to the story’s language which parorously hints what extreme steps the state will take preparing its litigant witnesses beside denying they held any impartations to the substance imnediatelyhe sources that were mentioned. Despite the absence of a factual answer the premise of this issue remains one of ascent as the story further progresses.
