PANews reported on September 24 that according to Cointelegraph, a group of doctors stated in a friend-of-the-court statement supporting the appeal of FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) that because SBF suffers from neurodivergent disorder, his criminal trial may be adversely affected, resulting in "lengthy answers" that frustrate the court.
Eight doctors specializing in the neurodivergent field told the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on September 20 that SBF's diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) "presented significant challenges during the trial of this case," and that several rulings were against him because of his "neurodivergent nature," particularly the Manhattan District Court's ruling that government prosecutors could cross-examine him without a jury before he sat before a jury. The ruling "may have had far-reaching consequences" because "the judge repeatedly rebuked SBF for his lengthy responses and attempted to clarify or rephrase questions" - a characteristic of autistic people, the doctors said, because they understand language in a literal way. The judge's punishment later caused SBF to change his answers before the jury. Unlike his answers when he was cross-examined without the jury, SBF's answers before the jury were often very brief or even truncated, which could easily be misinterpreted as arrogance or indifference; and SBF's inability to obtain "a series of FTX documents" and appropriate ADHD medication was also a detriment.
Meanwhile, a group of bankruptcy law professors filed an amicus brief the same day, supporting neither SBF nor the U.S. government — raising concerns about the crossover between the FTX bankruptcy case and the SBF trial. They argue that FTX’s bankruptcy proceedings to aid SBF prosecutors “sets a dangerous precedent that encourages the aggressive use of Chapter 11 proceedings to support parallel criminal prosecutions.” The group said the FTX bankruptcy estate’s contribution to the SBF criminal trial was “highly unusual compared to previous cases,” citing the Enron and WorldCom cases in the early 2000s. They added that the speed of the SBF trial meant jurors were told: “repeatedly and inaccurately that customers would receive nothing from FTX.” “Yet, defendants were not given the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence that the debtors were never found to be bankrupt or that FTX customers were in fact likely to receive nearly 150% of their claims,” they said.