# Mangione's Double Jeopardy & Superstar Lawyer on Trial

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 13 Feb 2026, 29 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/2ec5096d-81b6-48f9-8952-b3f000458a9c/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the double jeopardy claims at Luigi Mangione’s federal and state trials. Holly Barker, Bloomberg Law senior reporter, discusses superstar lawyer Tom Goldstein’s testimony at his criminal tax trial. June Grasso hosts. To contact the reporter on this story: See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:09] Speaker 2: As the time of murder University and of the lad
[0:12] Speaker 2: and jaws.
[0:13] Speaker 3: How do you please this diosturte filty or not guiltineaw.
[0:19] Speaker 1: Not Gottino.
[0:21] Speaker 4: Luigi Mangioni pleaded not guilty to murdering United Healthcare CEO
[0:26] Speaker 4: Brian Thompson in December of twenty twenty four. The public
[0:31] Speaker 4: hasn't heard much else from Mangoni until his outburst after
[0:35] Speaker 4: a tense hearing setting the date for his state murder trial.
[0:39] Speaker 4: As he was let out of the courtroom, Mangioni shouted,
[0:43] Speaker 4: it's the same trial twice one plus one is two
[0:47] Speaker 4: double jeopardy by any common sense definition, and state and
[0:52] Speaker 4: federal prosecutors have been engaged in a virtual tug of
[0:56] Speaker 4: war over who will try Mangioni first, and even the
[1:01] Speaker 4: judges seem to be jockeying for position, with the state
[1:05] Speaker 4: judge setting a trial date of June eighth, only after
[1:09] Speaker 4: the federal judge set a trial date of September eighth.
[1:13] Speaker 4: My guest his former federal prosecutor, Robert Mintz, a partner
[1:17] Speaker 4: at maccarter. In English, Bob, this is what you think
[1:20] Speaker 4: of as a typical state murder case. A person was
[1:24] Speaker 4: killed on the streets of New York City. It was
[1:27] Speaker 4: investigated by the New York Police in conjunction with the
[1:30] Speaker 4: Manhattan DA. The federal government didn't get involved until two
[1:34] Speaker 4: weeks after the shooting. I mean, why is the federal
[1:37] Speaker 4: government trying him as well?
[1:39] Speaker 5: Well, you're exactly right.
[1:40] Speaker 2: Murder cases are typically prosecuted in state courts, but in
[1:45] Speaker 2: this case, federal prosecutors have said that he crossed state
[1:48] Speaker 2: lines to stalk and ultimately kill Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson,
[1:54] Speaker 2: and that gives them federal jurisdiction to prosecute the case.
[1:58] Speaker 2: The other reality of what's going on here is that
[2:01] Speaker 2: this is a very high profile case, and both the
[2:04] Speaker 2: Department of Justice and the Manhattan DA's office both want
[2:08] Speaker 2: to take a shot at trying this case. And that's
[2:11] Speaker 2: why we're seeing a virtual tug of war between federal
[2:14] Speaker 2: prosecutors and state prosecutors as to who is going to
[2:18] Speaker 2: try this case first.
[2:20] Speaker 4: And both the state and the federal government overcharged Mangioni,
[2:25] Speaker 4: didn't they.
[2:26] Speaker 2: In both the state case and the federal case, judges
[2:30] Speaker 2: dismiss charges before they even went to trial. That is
[2:34] Speaker 2: something that is exceedingly rare. Most times prosecutors charge cases,
[2:40] Speaker 2: the case at least goes to trial. The defense can
[2:43] Speaker 2: make a motion to dismiss a charge at the end
[2:47] Speaker 2: of the case once all the evidence has been presented,
[2:49] Speaker 2: But it's unusual for prosecutors to bring charges and for
[2:53] Speaker 2: a judge to decide, based solely upon the law, that
[2:58] Speaker 2: those charges should not even reaury.
[3:00] Speaker 5: Now what we saw in this case was in the
[3:02] Speaker 5: state case.
[3:04] Speaker 2: Mister Mangoni was indicted on eleven counts, including two state
[3:07] Speaker 2: terrorism charges that carried a sentence of life in prison
[3:11] Speaker 2: without parole. The terrorism charges were dismissed in September. He
[3:15] Speaker 2: still faces a secondary murdered charge, which could be twenty
[3:19] Speaker 2: five years to life, and aid other charges, but those
[3:22] Speaker 2: terrorism charges were dismissed by the state court judge. In
[3:26] Speaker 2: federal court, we saw a similar thing happen where the
[3:29] Speaker 2: federal judge also dismissed charges. In that case, mister Mangion
[3:33] Speaker 2: faced four charges, two counts of stalking, a firearms offense,
[3:37] Speaker 2: and one count of using a firearm to commit murder,
[3:40] Speaker 2: which carries a maximum sense of death. The federal judge
[3:43] Speaker 2: dismissed the latter two charges and took the death penalty
[3:47] Speaker 2: off the table in the federal trial. So in both cases,
[3:51] Speaker 2: both federal and state, the maximum penalty is life without parole.
[3:56] Speaker 4: Now you mentioned this tug of war, so prosecutors and
[4:01] Speaker 4: the Manhattan prosecutors are fighting over who gets to bring
[4:05] Speaker 4: him to trial first. Normally, isn't that something that's worked
[4:10] Speaker 4: out between the federal prosecutors and the state prosecutors.
[4:14] Speaker 2: Generally, prosecutors do try to work together, and what they
[4:18] Speaker 2: do is they look at the federal case and the
[4:21] Speaker 2: charges that are brought there, they look at the state
[4:23] Speaker 2: case and the charges that are brought there, and they
[4:26] Speaker 2: make a decision objectively as to which office as the
[4:31] Speaker 2: stronger case and the higher likelihood of conviction. So in
[4:35] Speaker 2: many cases, the state charges will have slightly different elements
[4:38] Speaker 2: than the federal charges, and the penalties may be different,
[4:41] Speaker 2: and so prosecutors will essentially agree which is the strongest
[4:46] Speaker 2: case and lead with that. In this case, there seems
[4:49] Speaker 2: to be no cooperation between the federal government and the
[4:52] Speaker 2: Manhattan DA's office, and there is a virtual tug of
[4:56] Speaker 2: war between the two, a battle as to which case
[4:59] Speaker 2: is going to be tried first. We even saw at
[5:02] Speaker 2: a hearing before the state court judge, the judge make
[5:05] Speaker 2: a very unusual comment saying that US prosecutors had essentially
[5:10] Speaker 2: reneged on an agreement to let the state trial proceed first.
[5:14] Speaker 2: So we're seeing here a very unusual situation where the
[5:18] Speaker 2: federal judge has set the trial date for September eighth,
[5:21] Speaker 2: which has prompted the state court judge to set a
[5:24] Speaker 2: June eighth trial so that the state court case can
[5:28] Speaker 2: proceed and be completed before the federal case goes to trial.
[5:32] Speaker 4: Yeah, aren't the judges also jockeying for position a little bit?
[5:37] Speaker 1: Here?
[5:38] Speaker 4: The federal judge said that she was proceeding as if
[5:40] Speaker 4: the federal case was the only case unless one of
[5:44] Speaker 4: the parties raised an issue with her, and the state
[5:47] Speaker 4: court judge only sets a trial date when it looks
[5:50] Speaker 4: like the federal trial may go first. How do judges
[5:53] Speaker 4: usually handle it when there are competing trials.
[5:57] Speaker 2: Well, just like with prosecutors office say, there is no
[6:01] Speaker 2: set process by which state and federal judges must interact
[6:05] Speaker 2: with one another in terms of setting trials or anything else.
[6:09] Speaker 2: It's just usually a pattern in practice that there was
[6:12] Speaker 2: some degree of cooperation and some understanding as to which
[6:16] Speaker 2: case should proceed first.
[6:18] Speaker 5: Here we saw a.
[6:18] Speaker 2: Case where the state made the arrest first and their
[6:22] Speaker 2: first appearance was in state court. But then the case
[6:25] Speaker 2: got somewhat bogged down in state court, which has slowed
[6:28] Speaker 2: that process. And in fact, there was a hearing in December,
[6:32] Speaker 2: an important hearing regarding the exclusion of certain key evidence
[6:36] Speaker 2: in the case. State prosecutors had argued that evidence from
[6:41] Speaker 2: the backpack that was seized by police when mister Mangioni
[6:45] Speaker 2: was arrested at the McDonald's in Altoona should be admitted
[6:48] Speaker 2: into evidence. It includes some key evidence, including a nine
[6:52] Speaker 2: millimeter handgun, a silencer, a loaded gun magazine, and a diary, which,
[6:59] Speaker 2: according to state prosecutors, include some very incriminating statements made
[7:04] Speaker 2: by mister Mangioni, including a comment that Brian Thompson, the
[7:08] Speaker 2: Healthcare CEO quote had it coming that you whack the
[7:12] Speaker 2: CEO at the annual bean counter convention. So that's all
[7:16] Speaker 2: very critical evidence to prosecutors. There was an extended hearing
[7:19] Speaker 2: in December as to whether or not that evidence was
[7:22] Speaker 2: going to be admitted.
[7:23] Speaker 5: Into the state trial. The trial judge expects.
[7:26] Speaker 2: To rule on that decision in May, so the trial
[7:29] Speaker 2: judge is taking some time to make what is a
[7:32] Speaker 2: very critical decision about what evidence may or may not
[7:35] Speaker 2: be admitted in the state court. Interestingly, the very same
[7:39] Speaker 2: motion was argued in front of the federal judge, and
[7:43] Speaker 2: the judge rather expeditiously ruled that all of that evidence
[7:47] Speaker 2: will be admitted, denying the defense's argument that the police
[7:51] Speaker 2: improperly searched the bag without a warrant.
[7:53] Speaker 5: So that case, in some sense.
[7:56] Speaker 2: Is teed up and ready to go because that critical
[7:59] Speaker 2: decision about what evidence may be admitted the trial has
[8:02] Speaker 2: already been decided in federal court, but state court prosecutors
[8:06] Speaker 2: are adamant that their case should go first, based on
[8:10] Speaker 2: the theory that the New York Police Department investigated the
[8:13] Speaker 2: crime and federal prosecutors only became involved two weeks after
[8:18] Speaker 2: the murder.
[8:19] Speaker 5: They say that they have a greater.
[8:20] Speaker 2: Stake in the case, and in fact it's only the
[8:23] Speaker 2: state court case in which murder is being charged its
[8:27] Speaker 2: second degree murder. The federal charges are stalking charges, which
[8:31] Speaker 2: carry a serious penalty because as a result of the
[8:35] Speaker 2: stalking a death occurred, but the murder charges are only
[8:39] Speaker 2: the state court charges, and so state court prosecutors are
[8:42] Speaker 2: saying that the case should be tried in state court first,
[8:45] Speaker 2: and that federal prosecutors should try the case only after
[8:49] Speaker 2: the Manhattan Die's Office completes their prosecution.
[8:52] Speaker 4: Mangioni had an outburst in court saying, this is double
[8:56] Speaker 4: jeopardy trying him twice. And the average person might look
[9:00] Speaker 4: look at this and say, that's right. He's accused of
[9:03] Speaker 4: committing one crime, so why are both state and federal
[9:07] Speaker 4: prosecutors trying him for that crime? But the law of
[9:11] Speaker 4: double jeopardy isn't that simple.
[9:14] Speaker 2: Yeah, Double jeopardy is a nuanced concept in the law,
[9:19] Speaker 2: although it does have a.
[9:21] Speaker 5: Common sense understanding.
[9:23] Speaker 2: Basically, the Fifth Amendment precludes a person from being prosecuted
[9:27] Speaker 2: twice for the same offense, but there are some exceptions,
[9:31] Speaker 2: one of them being separate sovereigns. So, for example, if
[9:35] Speaker 2: the federal government and the state government want to prosecute
[9:38] Speaker 2: the same defendants for the same act, often that has
[9:42] Speaker 2: been permitted. If you go back to the days of
[9:44] Speaker 2: the civil rights movements, you may remember instances where a
[9:48] Speaker 2: white defendant was tried for the murder of a black
[9:52] Speaker 2: person and acquitted in state court, and then we saw
[9:54] Speaker 2: federal prosecutors come in and essentially tried the case again,
[9:59] Speaker 2: alleging civil rights violations in federal court and often could
[10:02] Speaker 2: get convictions in federal court when state court convictions were
[10:07] Speaker 2: not possible due to the makeup of the jury pool.
[10:10] Speaker 2: So there is a long history of cases that are
[10:15] Speaker 2: substantially similar being tried by different sovereigns, the federal government
[10:20] Speaker 2: and the state government. Interestingly, on the federal level, double jeopardy.
[10:24] Speaker 5: Is controlled by a nineteen.
[10:26] Speaker 2: Thirty two case called Blockbuster versus the United States that
[10:29] Speaker 2: basically says that if there are different statutory elements of
[10:33] Speaker 2: a crime, then you can be tried in separate cases. So,
[10:37] Speaker 2: in other words, if in state court you're being tried
[10:39] Speaker 2: for murder and there's certain elements to convict somebody for murder,
[10:43] Speaker 2: but you're being tried in federal court or violations of
[10:46] Speaker 2: someone's civil rights, and there are different elements, in other words,
[10:50] Speaker 2: prosecutors have to prove different facts in order to gain
[10:53] Speaker 2: a conviction, then those are considered separate crimes and do
[10:57] Speaker 2: not violate the double jeopardy clause. In New York State, however,
[11:01] Speaker 2: the laws of double jeopardy are actually broader than the
[11:04] Speaker 2: protection that the federal Constitution applies, and that's why we're
[11:09] Speaker 2: seeing this interesting interplay between the Mangone defense and federal
[11:14] Speaker 2: prosecutors saying that they would rather be tried in federal
[11:18] Speaker 2: court first because that will give them at least an
[11:22] Speaker 2: argument that the New York state case should be blocked
[11:25] Speaker 2: by the double jeopardy clause if the federal case proceeds first, and.
[11:30] Speaker 4: The New York state double jeopardy law is why this
[11:33] Speaker 4: fight over which trial goes first is so critical.
[11:37] Speaker 2: The New York state double jeopardy law is broader than
[11:40] Speaker 2: the federal constitution because under federal law, it looks at
[11:44] Speaker 2: that blockbuster test, which is only looking at elements of
[11:47] Speaker 2: a crime, while the New York state law looks at
[11:50] Speaker 2: the second prosecution as the same offense or the same
[11:54] Speaker 2: criminal transaction, and so it gives defense lawyers a chance
[11:58] Speaker 2: to argue that eve though the elements may be different,
[12:02] Speaker 2: it's really the same offense and the same criminal transaction.
[12:05] Speaker 2: In this case, my opinion is it will be an
[12:08] Speaker 2: uphill battle for the Manajary defense team to convince the
[12:11] Speaker 2: court that the New York State case is barred by
[12:13] Speaker 2: double jeopardy, but there's no question that they will have
[12:16] Speaker 2: a better argument if the federal case proceeds first, and
[12:20] Speaker 2: then they are in state court arguing that the state
[12:23] Speaker 2: prosecution is barred by the prior federal prosecution.
[12:27] Speaker 4: The defense attorney complained about the timing of the trials.
[12:30] Speaker 4: Right now, they're three months apart. If they go off
[12:34] Speaker 4: as scheduled. Karen Friedman Agnifolo told the state court Judge
[12:38] Speaker 4: Gregory Carow the defense will not be ready on June eighth,
[12:42] Speaker 4: and Judge Caro said be ready. Basically, having to prepare
[12:46] Speaker 4: for two trials at once does seem like a lot
[12:50] Speaker 4: for one defense team.
[12:52] Speaker 2: Generally, judges are pretty solicitous of defense lawyers who say
[12:57] Speaker 2: they need additional time.
[12:58] Speaker 5: To prepare for a trial, because what.
[13:00] Speaker 2: The judge does not want to have happened is they
[13:03] Speaker 2: go through an entire trial and ultimately there's a conviction,
[13:07] Speaker 2: for example, and then on appeal, the higher court looks
[13:11] Speaker 2: at the case and decides that the defense was not
[13:15] Speaker 2: provided adequate time to prepare for the defense, and the
[13:18] Speaker 2: whole case gets thrown out and has to be retried again.
[13:22] Speaker 2: So what we're seeing here is that the federal judge
[13:26] Speaker 2: set that September eighth date for the federal trial, and
[13:30] Speaker 2: the state court judge then counted backwards from that date
[13:34] Speaker 2: in order to set a trial beginning on June eighth,
[13:37] Speaker 2: to allow that trial to be completed first. But as
[13:40] Speaker 2: you say, the defense has strenuously argued that they will
[13:43] Speaker 2: not be ready by June eighth, and that it isn't
[13:47] Speaker 2: under burden for them to have to try the state
[13:50] Speaker 2: court case only to then, approximately three weeks later, have
[13:54] Speaker 2: to be sitting in federal court ready for another trial.
[13:57] Speaker 2: What the defense is arguing is that the defense men's
[14:00] Speaker 2: team is unfairly burdened because they have to prepare for
[14:04] Speaker 2: two trials, while prosecutors only have to prepare for one
[14:08] Speaker 2: trial each.
[14:09] Speaker 4: Also, Bob, you talked before about how the state court
[14:12] Speaker 4: judge hasn't decided yet about whether that critical evidence from
[14:16] Speaker 4: the backpack will come in at trial. Judge Caro said
[14:20] Speaker 4: he's going to make the decision by May eighteenth, but
[14:23] Speaker 4: they're supposed to go to trial on June eighth, even
[14:27] Speaker 4: though it's unlikely that the judge is going to suppress
[14:30] Speaker 4: that critical evidence. Shouldn't the defense know that definitively, While
[14:35] Speaker 4: they're preparing for trial.
[14:37] Speaker 2: Now, you're exactly right, and the federal judge has already
[14:40] Speaker 2: occurrent argument on that very issue and allow that evidence
[14:44] Speaker 2: to be admitted, So I think we can expect the
[14:47] Speaker 2: state cort judge to rule the same way. It would
[14:50] Speaker 2: be a devastating blow to prosecutors if the state cort
[14:53] Speaker 2: judge were to suppress that critical evidence, and it would
[14:56] Speaker 2: make it much more difficult for them to gain a conviction.
[14:59] Speaker 2: But nonetheless, from the defense standpoint, if you don't know
[15:02] Speaker 2: for sure where that evidence is coming in until the
[15:05] Speaker 2: middle of May and you've got to begin the trial
[15:07] Speaker 2: in the beginning of June, it doesn't give you a
[15:10] Speaker 2: lot of time to reset your case and to prepare
[15:13] Speaker 2: for trial. And that's exactly what they're going to argue.
[15:16] Speaker 2: So it's going to be very interesting to see whether
[15:18] Speaker 2: these dates hold. One possible issue that could push the
[15:22] Speaker 2: dates back is that if federal prosecutors decide to appeal
[15:27] Speaker 2: the federal judges' decision to throw out the death penalty
[15:31] Speaker 2: charge in the federal case, the state cord judge said
[15:34] Speaker 2: that he would likewise move back the start of the
[15:37] Speaker 2: state cord trial, So it's possible that the defense team
[15:41] Speaker 2: will get additional time if federal prosecutors appeal that decision,
[15:46] Speaker 2: but they will still have the argument that they have
[15:48] Speaker 2: to try these cases in close succession, and that they're
[15:51] Speaker 2: not going to be adequately prepared to try both cases.
[15:55] Speaker 4: It'll be interesting to see whether either of these trials
[15:58] Speaker 4: goes off as scheduled. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert
[16:02] Speaker 4: Mintz of Macarter in English. Coming up next, a superstar
[16:07] Speaker 4: lawyer takes the stand at his criminal tax trial. This
[16:11] Speaker 4: is Bloomberg.
[16:14] Speaker 2: And his face lost all expression said, if you're going
[16:17] Speaker 2: to play the game, boy, you gotta learn to plead right.
[16:22] Speaker 1: You got to play the home.
[16:26] Speaker 3: No when the hold.
[16:28] Speaker 5: No, when the law a week.
[16:31] Speaker 4: No win rhyme. Superstar Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein took
[16:37] Speaker 4: the stand at his criminal tax trial, going all in
[16:41] Speaker 4: with extraordinarily high stakes, even higher than those at the
[16:45] Speaker 4: multimillion dollar poker games he played in. And poker is
[16:49] Speaker 4: at the center of the trial, where Goldstein is accused
[16:53] Speaker 4: of failing to report millions of dollars of his winnings
[16:56] Speaker 4: while living a double life as a member of the
[16:59] Speaker 4: elite Supreme Court bar who argued more than forty cases
[17:03] Speaker 4: before the High Court, and as a high stakes poker
[17:07] Speaker 4: player who won about twenty six million dollars in one
[17:10] Speaker 4: series of matches and walked through US customs carrying a
[17:14] Speaker 4: bag of nearly a million dollars in cash. Goldstein knows
[17:19] Speaker 4: the odds and the risks of taking the stand and
[17:22] Speaker 4: opening himself up to cross examination, but he's gambling that
[17:27] Speaker 4: the jury will believe him and acquit him. Joining me
[17:30] Speaker 4: is Bloomberg Law senior reporter Holly Barker, who's covering the
[17:34] Speaker 4: Goldstein trial. Holly start by telling us about how shocked
[17:40] Speaker 4: the legal world was when Goldstein was indicted.
[17:44] Speaker 1: Tom Goldstein is a legal rock star.
[17:46] Speaker 3: He's argued more than forty cases before the U. S.
[17:49] Speaker 3: Supreme Court, and he got there a really unlikely route.
[17:54] Speaker 3: Most people who make it to the Supreme Court who
[17:57] Speaker 3: are that kind of elite lawyer also went to elite
[18:01] Speaker 3: law schools and they clerked for Supreme Court justices and
[18:04] Speaker 3: so on, and he sort of got there through pure hustle.
[18:08] Speaker 3: He would identify cases that he thought were likely to
[18:11] Speaker 3: get taken up by scotus, and he would cold call
[18:14] Speaker 3: the people involved in the case and sort of pitch
[18:16] Speaker 3: himself as the best person to take it up, and
[18:19] Speaker 3: that's kind of how he built his career. He was
[18:21] Speaker 3: also the co founder of the same called Scotus Blog,
[18:24] Speaker 3: which is a website that sort of covers all things
[18:27] Speaker 3: Supreme Court and became a really critical resource for people
[18:31] Speaker 3: in the legal world. So when he was indicted last
[18:36] Speaker 3: year on twenty two counts a combination of tax charges
[18:40] Speaker 3: and allegations that he made a false statement in connection
[18:44] Speaker 3: with loan applications.
[18:46] Speaker 1: People were shocked.
[18:47] Speaker 3: Those charges have been winnowed since they initially dropped. He
[18:51] Speaker 3: is presently on trial for one count of tax evasion
[18:54] Speaker 3: for twenty sixteen at counts of aiding and assisting in
[18:58] Speaker 3: a preparation of false and foudulate tax returns for twenty
[19:01] Speaker 3: seventeen through twenty twenty one, four counts of a full
[19:04] Speaker 3: failure to pay taxes and that's for tax years twenty seventeen,
[19:08] Speaker 3: twenty nineteen, twenty twenty and twenty twenty one, and three
[19:11] Speaker 3: counts of making a false statement on a loan application.
[19:15] Speaker 4: How did he get into this world of high stakes
[19:17] Speaker 4: poker and how much money did he make from playing?
[19:21] Speaker 3: So it had an interest in gambling like he would
[19:23] Speaker 3: play poker with people in his law firm.
[19:27] Speaker 1: You know, he was interested in it.
[19:28] Speaker 3: There was a period of time, I think in the
[19:30] Speaker 3: early aughts where poker was getting televised on TV and
[19:33] Speaker 3: it was sort of gaining in popularity. You know, he
[19:35] Speaker 3: represented people in the poker world. You know, one of
[19:39] Speaker 3: his clients is featured heavily in this trial incidentally, but
[19:43] Speaker 3: it wasn't really until twenty sixteen until he started playing
[19:47] Speaker 3: these like massive, multi million dollar hands and that's sort
[19:52] Speaker 3: of when things surfaced for him. And at trial, since
[19:55] Speaker 3: he's taken the stand, it came out that in twenty
[19:58] Speaker 3: fourteen he had a pulmonary embolism and almost died. And
[20:04] Speaker 3: after that happened, and I'm paraphrasing here, but he sort
[20:06] Speaker 3: of felt like I've got to seize life. And he
[20:09] Speaker 3: went on to say I may have overcooked that a bit,
[20:11] Speaker 3: but that's sort of what led to his gambling in
[20:14] Speaker 3: his sort of peak year in twenty sixteen, although it
[20:17] Speaker 3: continued for years after that with him mostly losing, but
[20:21] Speaker 3: that's sort of where it started.
[20:22] Speaker 4: Just tell us about how high the stakes were. I mean,
[20:25] Speaker 4: there was one instance where he carried a bag of
[20:28] Speaker 4: cash almost a million dollars in cash through US customs
[20:32] Speaker 4: from Hong Kong. I mean, what kind of money are
[20:34] Speaker 4: we talking about.
[20:36] Speaker 3: Well, so the bag of cash, Goldstein says, was actually
[20:40] Speaker 3: alone from a former client who's very grateful to him
[20:45] Speaker 3: for getting him off of criminal charges. It was a
[20:47] Speaker 3: loan to pay his taxes, is what he says. But
[20:49] Speaker 3: to answer your question, he played Alec Goriz in twenty
[20:53] Speaker 3: sixteen and won around twenty six million from him in
[20:57] Speaker 3: a series of matches. To give you like a rough
[21:00] Speaker 3: sense of the kind of dollar figures we're talking about.
[21:04] Speaker 4: The prosecution presented more than a dozen witnesses, from irs
[21:08] Speaker 4: agents and accountants to professional poker players and real estate moguls,
[21:14] Speaker 4: and even one movie star, Toby maguire of Spider Man fame,
[21:19] Speaker 4: who were the most important witnesses for the prosecution.
[21:23] Speaker 3: I think the most important witnesses in this trial for
[21:27] Speaker 3: the government were likely the accountants at Goldstein's outside accounting firm.
[21:34] Speaker 3: His defense, You know there were errors on his tax returns.
[21:38] Speaker 3: He's not disputing that there were transactions that should have
[21:42] Speaker 3: been characterized differently, either should have been characterized as income
[21:46] Speaker 3: or shouldn't have been deducted as business expenses and there's
[21:49] Speaker 3: only a handful of them eight to be exact, and
[21:52] Speaker 3: he's saying, look, yes, those should have been characterized differently,
[21:56] Speaker 3: But it wasn't my fault. I was relying on my
[21:58] Speaker 3: outside accountants and my managers. If they had any questions,
[22:02] Speaker 3: I would answer them. I would answer them honestly and
[22:05] Speaker 3: to the best of my ability. And they were the
[22:07] Speaker 3: ones dropping the ball on this. So in that respect,
[22:10] Speaker 3: getting the accountants on the stand to sort of explain
[22:14] Speaker 3: what their process was and the efforts that they made
[22:18] Speaker 3: to get his returns right was really important, I think
[22:20] Speaker 3: for the government. But I will say that the cross
[22:24] Speaker 3: examination of both of the accountants that they called was
[22:29] Speaker 3: super effective. They highlighted mistakes that the accountants made that
[22:33] Speaker 3: hurt gold Scene that he didn't catch in terms of
[22:36] Speaker 3: his tax liabilities, and they didn't follow up and ask
[22:40] Speaker 3: specific questions. Cravis gold Scene's lead defense layer just sort
[22:46] Speaker 3: of took it apart.
[22:47] Speaker 4: You know, I have to ask you about Toby McGuire's testimony.
[22:51] Speaker 4: He's known as a high stakes poker player.
[22:54] Speaker 1: The test on Toby McGuire was brief.
[22:57] Speaker 3: Toby maguire took the stand to testify about a five
[23:01] Speaker 3: hundred thousand dollars legal fee that he owed to gold
[23:04] Speaker 3: Steine after gold Stcene helped McGuire recover significant gambling debt
[23:11] Speaker 3: from Andy Beal, who's a.
[23:13] Speaker 1: Billionaire in Texas.
[23:14] Speaker 3: So he won fifteen point six million dollars in poker,
[23:17] Speaker 3: about half of that was his bill.
[23:19] Speaker 1: Didn't want to pay, so he hires gold Scene.
[23:22] Speaker 3: Gold Scene does the job, gets a successful result, McGuire
[23:26] Speaker 3: gets paid, and gold Stcene has this five hundred thousand
[23:29] Speaker 3: dollars fee. But instead of having McGuire send the fee
[23:33] Speaker 3: to him, he had McGuire send the money directly to
[23:36] Speaker 3: someone to whom Goldstein owned a gambling debt. So the
[23:40] Speaker 3: idea was to have him come in and testify about
[23:43] Speaker 3: this transaction that was ultimately misclassified. But again, you know,
[23:47] Speaker 3: gold Stcene isn't disputing that certain transactions were misclassified or
[23:51] Speaker 3: that he directed this fee from McGuire to somebody to
[23:55] Speaker 3: whom he owned a debt. What he's saying is the
[23:58] Speaker 3: way that it was classified on my tax return is
[24:00] Speaker 3: not my fault.
[24:01] Speaker 1: It was an error, but it wasn't an intentional error.
[24:04] Speaker 4: So I mean, he paid taxes every year, he got
[24:08] Speaker 4: extensions when he had to, and he even paid penalties
[24:12] Speaker 4: and interest.
[24:14] Speaker 1: That's right.
[24:14] Speaker 3: So he's all paid up on the taxiers at issue
[24:17] Speaker 3: now and he paid with interest in penalties, and he
[24:20] Speaker 3: testified that total of million dollars the interest in the
[24:23] Speaker 3: penalties that he's paid over the life of these late taxes.
[24:27] Speaker 4: So, as we've said, Goldstein took the stand in his
[24:31] Speaker 4: own defense. What was his demeanor like?
[24:34] Speaker 1: He was calm and collected.
[24:37] Speaker 3: He was a little bit self deprecating at points, particularly
[24:41] Speaker 3: when he was talking about his gambling losses. He and
[24:44] Speaker 3: this is just my perspective. The jurors may have a
[24:47] Speaker 3: different perspective. I thought he came across as very credible.
[24:50] Speaker 3: That said, you know, maybe he will come across as
[24:53] Speaker 3: less credible cross examination. But he has not done any
[24:56] Speaker 3: violence to his defense yet.
[25:00] Speaker 4: Dent is critical in this trial. So how did he
[25:03] Speaker 4: explain what his intent was or wasn't.
[25:06] Speaker 3: So this whole case is turning on what was in
[25:08] Speaker 3: his mind, and so the point of him taking this stand,
[25:12] Speaker 3: I think is to fill those gaps. I think one
[25:14] Speaker 3: of the most surprising things he testified to is so
[25:18] Speaker 3: he walked the jurors through his gambling in twenty sixteen
[25:22] Speaker 3: and through this allegedly secret gambling ledger that actually he'd
[25:27] Speaker 3: asked one of his law froom managers to email him
[25:29] Speaker 3: at some point like it wasn't really this secret gambling ledger,
[25:33] Speaker 3: he said. And he also said that the origin of
[25:35] Speaker 3: the ledger was because his accountant had suggested that maybe
[25:38] Speaker 3: they needed to send ten ninety nine's to people he
[25:41] Speaker 3: had sent money to for saking payments or gambling losses.
[25:45] Speaker 3: They decided they didn't need to ultimately do that, but
[25:47] Speaker 3: that was sort of the origin its ledger.
[25:49] Speaker 1: So he walks, we walks.
[25:50] Speaker 3: The jerors through the ledger, and then he fills in
[25:53] Speaker 3: some of the gaps and explains like where different errors were,
[25:57] Speaker 3: like what he was trying to assemble and why there
[25:59] Speaker 3: were question marks in certain places.
[26:01] Speaker 1: He also referred to and this.
[26:03] Speaker 3: The government has objected and hasn't made it into evidence.
[26:06] Speaker 3: This ledger that he maintained with this guy Paul Flaw,
[26:10] Speaker 3: who was one of his former clients, ultra wealthy Malaysian
[26:13] Speaker 3: Chinese businessman, and they had this sort of ongoing gambling
[26:17] Speaker 3: relationship and they had this virtual ledger where they sort
[26:20] Speaker 3: of tracked everything that they owed one another. So he
[26:24] Speaker 3: was able to sort of refresh his memory using that
[26:27] Speaker 3: what he actually reported on his twenty sixteen return for
[26:32] Speaker 3: gambling income was two point seven million. An IRS expert
[26:37] Speaker 3: who testified earlier this week, she said he should have
[26:41] Speaker 3: reported six point two million and gambling winnings on his return. Wednesday,
[26:45] Speaker 3: he told Juers that in fact, he should have reported
[26:48] Speaker 3: zero income on his tax return because he had screwed
[26:52] Speaker 3: up his gambling calculations so badly that he was actually
[26:56] Speaker 3: in the negative.
[26:57] Speaker 4: Is that all about the numbers or is that.
[26:59] Speaker 3: All about the numbers and understanding what the numbers meant.
[27:04] Speaker 3: So the government's looking at these numbers, but they don't
[27:07] Speaker 3: understand whose money belonged to who. So for example, he
[27:11] Speaker 3: might have like a money that he owes somebody who
[27:14] Speaker 3: staked him, you know, backed him at a game, and
[27:17] Speaker 3: you say he wins, and he's got their share of
[27:20] Speaker 3: the gambling winnings. You know, sometimes he would have it
[27:22] Speaker 3: for a while and they'd be like, no, don't pay me,
[27:24] Speaker 3: pay that guy.
[27:25] Speaker 1: So when the government's.
[27:26] Speaker 3: Like just looking at his bank accounts and looking at wires,
[27:30] Speaker 3: they're looking at a really incomplete picture. That's sort of
[27:32] Speaker 3: what he was getting across and he was filling in
[27:35] Speaker 3: those gaps, and by the time he was done filling
[27:37] Speaker 3: in those gaps, the mouth looked very different.
[27:40] Speaker 4: Were the prosecutors surprised by this or were they expecting it?
[27:45] Speaker 1: I think they were very surprised.
[27:47] Speaker 3: So Jonathan Cravis, again, this is a gold Stein sort
[27:51] Speaker 3: of lead defense layer. He's done most of the heavy
[27:53] Speaker 3: lifting in terms of cross examination so far, and he
[27:57] Speaker 3: did direct I mean he almost let out of his
[27:59] Speaker 3: seat when the government rested to announce that, oh, by
[28:04] Speaker 3: the way, here's our printed motion for acquittal and all
[28:06] Speaker 3: the exhibits, and mister Goldsetine intends to testify tomorrow. And
[28:11] Speaker 3: apparently he planned to do this the entire time. There
[28:15] Speaker 3: was never any doubt from the defense team that he
[28:19] Speaker 3: was going to testify. And the reason I say that
[28:22] Speaker 3: the government was definitely surprised is because in the course
[28:25] Speaker 3: of making different arguments, like mostly about whether.
[28:28] Speaker 1: Or not evidence is going to come in, etc. Etc.
[28:30] Speaker 3: They've said, well, you know, he's trying to smuggle in
[28:33] Speaker 3: exculpatory statements. He's you know, he's not going to take
[28:36] Speaker 3: the stand, and so he's trying to get you know,
[28:38] Speaker 3: his own thinking in other ways.
[28:40] Speaker 1: YadA YadA YadA.
[28:41] Speaker 3: You know, it was very clear that the government did
[28:43] Speaker 3: not think that he would subject himself to this.
[28:46] Speaker 4: Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter Holly Barker,
[28:51] Speaker 4: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
[28:54] Speaker 4: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
[28:56] Speaker 4: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple podcas, Spotify,
[29:01] Speaker 4: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,
[29:06] Speaker 4: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
[29:09] Speaker 4: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
[29:13] Speaker 4: and you're listening to Bloomberg

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.