Latest / Bloomberg Law / Mangione's Double Jeopardy & Superstar Lawyer on Trial

Transcript

Mangione's Double Jeopardy & Superstar Lawyer on Trial · Bloomberg Law

• 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