This is beyond a reasonable doubt with your hosts, Mark Garigas, and Gary Smith.

You know, a DOS that never gets old. I just, I know I've said it once, but I could say it a hundred times, just the best.

How are you on this Sunday morning? I'm well. How are you, Mark?

Welcome to the altar of Bartum, great city in New York City, and actually, as I'm sitting in New York City, I don't know whether it was arriving here or the issue itself, but the thing that's intrigued me this weekend, if you will, is the Sam Friedman trial that's going on here in New York City.

Have you been following it at all?

I'm following it well enough to know his name is Sam Thankman Fried, which you've never really been able to get a fucking handball.

It's been about five years now that you've been screwing that up, but you know, come less.

I said, it's something the one of the reasons that it intrigues me is it's got a great issue that both lawyers and people who aren't in the law have been asking this weekend.

That is how is it? You know, he took the stand and when he first took the stand, I don't know if you have some of the headlines, but interestingly, people were perplexed.

How is it that he's taking the stand in a jury trial, but when he takes the stand, there's no jury present.

And that is befuddled. I think some of the press and many people both in and out of the legal community.

Here we go. Sam Bankman Fried, I got it that time when you're reading it.

Thumbles through cross examination and he wasn't even in front of the jury.

And Leo who I've been following on his trial reporting does a decent job of reporting some of the facts.

I made disagree with his handicapping of the trial because as I've said once, I've said a million times, this isn't sports center and what, you know, what you may be handicapping for a game is not the same as a trial.

Because you don't know what the lawyer strategy is, but what happened here is there was pre trial skirmishing over whether or not the defense and what the defense could provide.

Now, through a lot of people, this is absolutely provides or provokes wonder, what do you mean what you can provide or what you can testify to or what you can bring it as evidence, but the judge as the gatekeeper will oftentimes in this case, it's been constant be asked by the prosecution to limit what the defense can present.

So in this case, leading up to him's taking the stand, the government had successfully excluded a number of witnesses that the defense wanted to call to show various things to negate various elements of the prosecution's case.

So once that happened, then the defense indicated that they may want to call this is before the he took the sand, the defendant himself, the accused and the government as the government loves to do, then wanted to get a dry run, if you sort of speak, and what I mean by a dry run, Gary is put him on the stand and get one crack across examination of him.

And then try to convince the judge to disallow prevent him from testifying to large swaths of what he wanted to that bug you at all.

It does and that's not something that I'm really familiar with that's not something that I was aware is common practice is that something that happens often is that commonly allowed, you know, allowing the defendant to testify without the jury present and then the judge decides if he's allowed to testify that does not seem kosher to me.

Well, this happens. It's I don't believe that it's common, I believe that it's more a creature of federal court than state courts. I also think, frankly, that it's an interference with the the constitutional right, an absolute right to testify.

...