Sam Bankman-Fried's attempt to secure a new trial fell apart under scrutiny at every level, and Judge Kaplan's order makes clear exactly why. The central argument was that three former FTX executives, specifically Ryan Salame, Daniel Chapsky, and Nishad Singh, could have provided testimony that undermined the government's case about FTX's insolvency. Judge Kaplan rejected this on multiple grounds. First, none of the witnesses were newly discovered. Bankman-Fried knew all three long before trial and had the opportunity to seek their testimony. Second, his claim that their absence or cooperation with prosecutors resulted from government threats was described by Kaplan as wildly conspiratorial and entirely contradicted by the record.

The specific situations of each witness further undercut Bankman-Fried's argument. Ryan Salame separately pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and operating an illegal money-transmitting business, receiving a seven and a half year sentence. Nishad Singh, FTX's former engineering lead, cut a plea deal and testified against Bankman-Fried at trial. Bankman-Fried's claim that Singh changed his testimony following threats from the government was given no weight by the court. The broader picture painted by Judge Kaplan is of a defendant who had every opportunity to build a more robust defense before and during trial, chose not to pursue available legal avenues, and is now attempting to reframe those choices as newly discovered grounds for relief.