SBF files motion to withdraw appeal, citing judicial bias: Claims Judge Kaplan is unfair and requests recusal to proceed with direct appeal

SBF filed a written declaration in court on Wednesday to withdraw his motion for a new trial, citing his belief that presiding Judge Lewis Kaplan would not provide a fair hearing. Despite abandoning this request, SBF retains two avenues: a motion to recuse the judge and a direct appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. (Context: The 180 days before CZ was pardoned by Trump: Struggles and self-rescue) (Background: Polymarket "banned" in Nevada, USA! Court classifies it as unauthorized gambling and issues a 14-day temporary injunction) In the withdrawal letter, SBF wrote in his own hand: "because I do not believe I will get a fair hearing on this topic in front of you"—directly telling Judge Kaplan that he does not believe he can receive a fair hearing before him. SBF submitted a written declaration to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday (4/23), formally withdrawing his motion for a new trial filed under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (without prejudice, reserving the right to refile). While withdrawing the new trial application, SBF maintains two separate channels for relief: the first is the "motion to recuse the judge" filed in February, which remains pending; the second is a direct appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The former's application is strongly worded, accusing Judge Kaplan of holding "extreme prejudice" against him; the latter would remove the case from Kaplan's jurisdiction and move it to a higher-level federal circuit court. The trigger for this withdrawal can be traced back to a series of procedural disputes. In March, SBF submitted a motion for an extension "pro se," and days later, his mother, Barbara Fried, wrote a letter to the court on his behalf despite not being a party to the litigation. Prosecutors immediately questioned whether SBF had received secret assistance from lawyers while drafting the pro se motion. This query prompted court intervention. Judge Kaplan wrote to SBF on March 23, demanding a clear answer on whether he had received legal assistance. SBF's reply on Wednesday provided the answer: "The letter was written by me, but I consulted with my parents during the process." He then pivoted to announce the withdrawal of the new trial motion, explaining that he had lost confidence in the judge. SBF's original new trial application centered on a serious allegation: he claimed that the DOJ during the Biden administration "threatened multiple witnesses to remain silent or demanded they change their testimony," preventing him from receiving a fair defense in his 2023 trial. This claim was never formally reviewed in court, and with the motion now withdrawn, it will not have the opportunity to undergo judicial scrutiny for the time being. Beyond judicial relief, SBF has sought a political path to resolution. He has posted multiple times on X (formerly Twitter), publicly praising Trump's cryptocurrency policies and military actions regarding Iran, which is widely interpreted as an olive branch to the White House in hopes of receiving a presidential pardon. However, in an interview with The New York Times in January, Trump explicitly stated that he had no intention of pardoning SBF. Compared to the case of CZ, who campaigned for clemency during the same period and was ultimately pardoned, SBF's path to a pardon is clearly much more arduous. SBF is currently serving his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc I in California. He was found guilty of seven counts of fraud and other charges by a jury in 2023 and was subsequently sentenced to 25 years in prison by Judge Kaplan—the very same judge he now publicly declares he does not trust. From withdrawing the new trial motion to continuing to push for the recusal of the judge, SBF's legal strategy has gradually narrowed to a core demand: removing Kaplan from the case. Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is willing to intervene is the true key to determining the subsequent direction of the case.