• Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial starts with jury selection and a surprising change in his appearance.
• Twelve jurors, diverse in background, are chosen to decide on seven fraud and money laundering charges.

The trial of Sam Bankman-Fried, accused of orchestrating a significant financial fraud, kicked off this week. This article will provide an overview of the trial’s early proceedings, including the jury selection process and initial observations.

On Wednesday, the trial began with the critical jury selection process at the Manhattan federal courthouse. A pool of forty-six potential jurors assembled, each with a unique background and perspective. The court carefully selected twelve jurors and six alternates from this pool to bear the weighty responsibility of determining Sam Bankman-Fried’s guilt or innocence on seven fraud and money laundering charges.

Bankman-Fried’s Altered Appearance

Observers noted a significant change in Sam Bankman-Fried’s appearance as he arrived in court. Once recognized for his casual cargo shorts and t-shirt attire, Bankman-Fried opted for a more formal look. He wore a gray suit, a purple tie, and a fresh haircut, including a noticeable alteration to his sideburns.

Throughout the morning proceedings, Bankman-Fried remained engrossed with his laptop, positioned at the forefront of the courtroom. He was facing the federal judge, Lewis Kaplan, and his primary attorney, Mark Cohen. His penchant for fidgeting persisted, as evidenced by his ceaseless shaking of his right leg beneath the table, a well-established habit.

Profiles of Jurors

The twelve jurors selected constitute a diverse assembly. Comprising nine women and three men, their ages range from 33 to 69. To preserve their anonymity, we abstain from disclosing their names but provide some insights into their backgrounds:

• A 39-year-old female physician assistant, presently ten weeks pregnant, with a medical background, and a husband employed in web development.
• A 33-year-old female nurse residing alone in Westchester, New York.
• A 40-year-old female social worker currently unemployed.
• A 53-year-old female Duke University graduate, a divorced mother of two who previously managed fundraisers for nonprofits.
• A 59-year-old male, married with three children, one of whom works at a bank.
• A 50-year-old female Metro-North train conductor and mother of five, with three children at home and two in college.
• A 47-year-old female high school librarian, single, living with her cats, sister, and ailing mother.
• A 65-year-old female retired corrections officer and mother of three.
• A 61-year-old male U.S. Postal Service employee without a spouse or children who had previously served as a juror.
• A 43-year-old female originally from Ukraine, currently employed in IT at Bloomberg, divorced with two children.
• A 55-year-old female special education teacher with a background in banking, originally from Bermuda, holds degrees from Waterloo University, NYU, and Seton Hall University.
• A 69-year-old male, a retired investment banker from Hong Kong, with a wife and no children, diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and educated at Rice University and Stanford University.

Jurors’ Engagement and Adaptation

As the trial progressed into its second day, jurors navigated unfamiliar terrain. Many lacked a background in finance and cryptocurrency, making the technical aspects of the case potentially perplexing. Even those with some knowledge of crypto could find the intricacies of the case daunting.

Some jurors maintained an unwavering focus on the courtroom happenings during the proceedings. However, others displayed confusion or disinterest as opening statements unfolded and initial witness testimonies were presented. Interestingly, most jurors refrained from taking notes on the second day of the trial. It remains uncertain whether their approach will evolve as the trial unfolds further.