Sam Bankman-Fried Drops Bid for New Trial Over Fair Hearing Concerns

Key Points

• Sam Bankman-Fried withdrew his Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
• Appeal and judicial recusal request remain pending before the Second Circuit.

Sam Bankman-Fried, former CEO of FTX, has withdrawn his Rule 33 motion seeking a new trial while serving a 25-year federal sentence in California.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, he stated that he did not expect a fair hearing from the presiding judge.

The withdrawal was filed without prejudice, preserving his ability to refile the motion after his direct appeal concludes and any judicial reassignment request is resolved.

His broader appeal of both conviction and sentence remains active before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Rule 33 Motion and Appeal Process

A Rule 33 motion under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a convicted defendant to request a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or if required in the interest of justice.

The motion was initially submitted in March 2026 by Bankman-Fried’s mother, Barbara Fried, while he was incarcerated in Brooklyn before being transferred to Lompoc.

In an April 2026 filing, Bankman-Fried asserted that he independently researched and drafted multiple versions of the motion, a claim that prosecutors formally disputed.

Judge Kaplan directed him to clarify the authorship of the filing, noting that he was proceeding pro se and would need to confirm whether the motion was self-authored before the court considered its merits.

Bankman-Fried stated that responding to the court’s inquiries regarding authorship diverted time and resources from addressing the government’s opposition to the motion.

Judicial Recusal Request

In February 2026, his legal team filed a motion seeking Judge Kaplan’s recusal, alleging bias during the trial proceedings.

The recusal request remains pending before the Second Circuit alongside his direct appeal.

If the recusal were granted, any future Rule 33 motion could be reassigned to a different district court judge, potentially altering the procedural posture of the case.