1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,320
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,080 --> 00:00:12,520
Speaker 2: As the time of murder University and of the lad

3
00:00:12,560 --> 00:00:13,080
Speaker 2: and jaws.

4
00:00:13,440 --> 00:00:17,440
Speaker 3: How do you please this diosturte filty or not guiltineaw.

5
00:00:19,440 --> 00:00:20,160
Speaker 1: Not Gottino.

6
00:00:21,680 --> 00:00:26,680
Speaker 4: Luigi Mangioni pleaded not guilty to murdering United Healthcare CEO

7
00:00:26,760 --> 00:00:31,200
Speaker 4: Brian Thompson in December of twenty twenty four. The public

8
00:00:31,240 --> 00:00:35,360
Speaker 4: hasn't heard much else from Mangoni until his outburst after

9
00:00:35,440 --> 00:00:38,920
Speaker 4: a tense hearing setting the date for his state murder trial.

10
00:00:39,320 --> 00:00:43,000
Speaker 4: As he was let out of the courtroom, Mangioni shouted,

11
00:00:43,200 --> 00:00:47,000
Speaker 4: it's the same trial twice one plus one is two

12
00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:52,400
Speaker 4: double jeopardy by any common sense definition, and state and

13
00:00:52,520 --> 00:00:56,680
Speaker 4: federal prosecutors have been engaged in a virtual tug of

14
00:00:56,760 --> 00:01:01,040
Speaker 4: war over who will try Mangioni first, and even the

15
00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:05,200
Speaker 4: judges seem to be jockeying for position, with the state

16
00:01:05,319 --> 00:01:09,440
Speaker 4: judge setting a trial date of June eighth, only after

17
00:01:09,520 --> 00:01:13,280
Speaker 4: the federal judge set a trial date of September eighth.

18
00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:17,400
Speaker 4: My guest his former federal prosecutor, Robert Mintz, a partner

19
00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:20,600
Speaker 4: at maccarter. In English, Bob, this is what you think

20
00:01:20,640 --> 00:01:24,680
Speaker 4: of as a typical state murder case. A person was

21
00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:27,360
Speaker 4: killed on the streets of New York City. It was

22
00:01:27,400 --> 00:01:30,520
Speaker 4: investigated by the New York Police in conjunction with the

23
00:01:30,560 --> 00:01:34,440
Speaker 4: Manhattan DA. The federal government didn't get involved until two

24
00:01:34,440 --> 00:01:37,160
Speaker 4: weeks after the shooting. I mean, why is the federal

25
00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:39,360
Speaker 4: government trying him as well?

26
00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:40,840
Speaker 5: Well, you're exactly right.

27
00:01:40,959 --> 00:01:45,520
Speaker 2: Murder cases are typically prosecuted in state courts, but in

28
00:01:45,520 --> 00:01:48,440
Speaker 2: this case, federal prosecutors have said that he crossed state

29
00:01:48,520 --> 00:01:54,440
Speaker 2: lines to stalk and ultimately kill Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson,

30
00:01:54,840 --> 00:01:58,480
Speaker 2: and that gives them federal jurisdiction to prosecute the case.

31
00:01:58,800 --> 00:02:01,320
Speaker 2: The other reality of what's going on here is that

32
00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:04,640
Speaker 2: this is a very high profile case, and both the

33
00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:08,760
Speaker 2: Department of Justice and the Manhattan DA's office both want

34
00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:11,480
Speaker 2: to take a shot at trying this case. And that's

35
00:02:11,520 --> 00:02:14,840
Speaker 2: why we're seeing a virtual tug of war between federal

36
00:02:14,840 --> 00:02:18,720
Speaker 2: prosecutors and state prosecutors as to who is going to

37
00:02:18,760 --> 00:02:19,880
Speaker 2: try this case first.

38
00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:25,359
Speaker 4: And both the state and the federal government overcharged Mangioni,

39
00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:26,160
Speaker 4: didn't they.

40
00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:30,200
Speaker 2: In both the state case and the federal case, judges

41
00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:34,440
Speaker 2: dismiss charges before they even went to trial. That is

42
00:02:34,480 --> 00:02:39,960
Speaker 2: something that is exceedingly rare. Most times prosecutors charge cases,

43
00:02:40,320 --> 00:02:43,239
Speaker 2: the case at least goes to trial. The defense can

44
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:47,120
Speaker 2: make a motion to dismiss a charge at the end

45
00:02:47,160 --> 00:02:49,600
Speaker 2: of the case once all the evidence has been presented,

46
00:02:49,800 --> 00:02:53,600
Speaker 2: But it's unusual for prosecutors to bring charges and for

47
00:02:53,680 --> 00:02:58,320
Speaker 2: a judge to decide, based solely upon the law, that

48
00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:00,600
Speaker 2: those charges should not even reaury.

49
00:03:00,760 --> 00:03:02,680
Speaker 5: Now what we saw in this case was in the

50
00:03:02,720 --> 00:03:03,720
Speaker 5: state case.

51
00:03:04,040 --> 00:03:07,680
Speaker 2: Mister Mangoni was indicted on eleven counts, including two state

52
00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:10,960
Speaker 2: terrorism charges that carried a sentence of life in prison

53
00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:15,360
Speaker 2: without parole. The terrorism charges were dismissed in September. He

54
00:03:15,480 --> 00:03:19,240
Speaker 2: still faces a secondary murdered charge, which could be twenty

55
00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:22,399
Speaker 2: five years to life, and aid other charges, but those

56
00:03:22,520 --> 00:03:26,080
Speaker 2: terrorism charges were dismissed by the state court judge. In

57
00:03:26,200 --> 00:03:29,000
Speaker 2: federal court, we saw a similar thing happen where the

58
00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:33,040
Speaker 2: federal judge also dismissed charges. In that case, mister Mangion

59
00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:37,600
Speaker 2: faced four charges, two counts of stalking, a firearms offense,

60
00:03:37,840 --> 00:03:40,240
Speaker 2: and one count of using a firearm to commit murder,

61
00:03:40,360 --> 00:03:43,800
Speaker 2: which carries a maximum sense of death. The federal judge

62
00:03:43,800 --> 00:03:47,440
Speaker 2: dismissed the latter two charges and took the death penalty

63
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:50,960
Speaker 2: off the table in the federal trial. So in both cases,

64
00:03:51,120 --> 00:03:55,400
Speaker 2: both federal and state, the maximum penalty is life without parole.

65
00:03:56,280 --> 00:04:01,040
Speaker 4: Now you mentioned this tug of war, so prosecutors and

66
00:04:01,120 --> 00:04:05,840
Speaker 4: the Manhattan prosecutors are fighting over who gets to bring

67
00:04:05,920 --> 00:04:10,080
Speaker 4: him to trial first. Normally, isn't that something that's worked

68
00:04:10,120 --> 00:04:13,960
Speaker 4: out between the federal prosecutors and the state prosecutors.

69
00:04:14,480 --> 00:04:18,240
Speaker 2: Generally, prosecutors do try to work together, and what they

70
00:04:18,320 --> 00:04:20,960
Speaker 2: do is they look at the federal case and the

71
00:04:21,040 --> 00:04:23,479
Speaker 2: charges that are brought there, they look at the state

72
00:04:23,560 --> 00:04:26,280
Speaker 2: case and the charges that are brought there, and they

73
00:04:26,320 --> 00:04:31,320
Speaker 2: make a decision objectively as to which office as the

74
00:04:31,360 --> 00:04:35,080
Speaker 2: stronger case and the higher likelihood of conviction. So in

75
00:04:35,120 --> 00:04:38,560
Speaker 2: many cases, the state charges will have slightly different elements

76
00:04:38,640 --> 00:04:41,760
Speaker 2: than the federal charges, and the penalties may be different,

77
00:04:41,920 --> 00:04:46,400
Speaker 2: and so prosecutors will essentially agree which is the strongest

78
00:04:46,440 --> 00:04:49,360
Speaker 2: case and lead with that. In this case, there seems

79
00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:52,599
Speaker 2: to be no cooperation between the federal government and the

80
00:04:52,640 --> 00:04:56,000
Speaker 2: Manhattan DA's office, and there is a virtual tug of

81
00:04:56,080 --> 00:04:59,159
Speaker 2: war between the two, a battle as to which case

82
00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:02,560
Speaker 2: is going to be tried first. We even saw at

83
00:05:02,600 --> 00:05:05,560
Speaker 2: a hearing before the state court judge, the judge make

84
00:05:05,839 --> 00:05:10,440
Speaker 2: a very unusual comment saying that US prosecutors had essentially

85
00:05:10,560 --> 00:05:14,400
Speaker 2: reneged on an agreement to let the state trial proceed first.

86
00:05:14,760 --> 00:05:18,040
Speaker 2: So we're seeing here a very unusual situation where the

87
00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:21,479
Speaker 2: federal judge has set the trial date for September eighth,

88
00:05:21,760 --> 00:05:24,760
Speaker 2: which has prompted the state court judge to set a

89
00:05:24,880 --> 00:05:28,240
Speaker 2: June eighth trial so that the state court case can

90
00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:31,719
Speaker 2: proceed and be completed before the federal case goes to trial.

91
00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:37,400
Speaker 4: Yeah, aren't the judges also jockeying for position a little bit?

92
00:05:37,440 --> 00:05:37,719
Speaker 1: Here?

93
00:05:38,080 --> 00:05:40,960
Speaker 4: The federal judge said that she was proceeding as if

94
00:05:40,960 --> 00:05:44,360
Speaker 4: the federal case was the only case unless one of

95
00:05:44,400 --> 00:05:47,279
Speaker 4: the parties raised an issue with her, and the state

96
00:05:47,320 --> 00:05:50,400
Speaker 4: court judge only sets a trial date when it looks

97
00:05:50,440 --> 00:05:53,560
Speaker 4: like the federal trial may go first. How do judges

98
00:05:53,640 --> 00:05:57,520
Speaker 4: usually handle it when there are competing trials.

99
00:05:57,480 --> 00:06:01,080
Speaker 2: Well, just like with prosecutors office say, there is no

100
00:06:01,360 --> 00:06:05,640
Speaker 2: set process by which state and federal judges must interact

101
00:06:05,720 --> 00:06:08,880
Speaker 2: with one another in terms of setting trials or anything else.

102
00:06:09,120 --> 00:06:12,479
Speaker 2: It's just usually a pattern in practice that there was

103
00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:16,520
Speaker 2: some degree of cooperation and some understanding as to which

104
00:06:16,600 --> 00:06:17,880
Speaker 2: case should proceed first.

105
00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:18,960
Speaker 5: Here we saw a.

106
00:06:18,920 --> 00:06:22,200
Speaker 2: Case where the state made the arrest first and their

107
00:06:22,200 --> 00:06:25,200
Speaker 2: first appearance was in state court. But then the case

108
00:06:25,279 --> 00:06:28,400
Speaker 2: got somewhat bogged down in state court, which has slowed

109
00:06:28,440 --> 00:06:31,800
Speaker 2: that process. And in fact, there was a hearing in December,

110
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:36,839
Speaker 2: an important hearing regarding the exclusion of certain key evidence

111
00:06:36,880 --> 00:06:41,799
Speaker 2: in the case. State prosecutors had argued that evidence from

112
00:06:41,839 --> 00:06:45,480
Speaker 2: the backpack that was seized by police when mister Mangioni

113
00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:48,920
Speaker 2: was arrested at the McDonald's in Altoona should be admitted

114
00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:52,880
Speaker 2: into evidence. It includes some key evidence, including a nine

115
00:06:52,960 --> 00:06:59,120
Speaker 2: millimeter handgun, a silencer, a loaded gun magazine, and a diary, which,

116
00:06:59,160 --> 00:07:04,640
Speaker 2: according to state prosecutors, include some very incriminating statements made

117
00:07:04,640 --> 00:07:08,920
Speaker 2: by mister Mangioni, including a comment that Brian Thompson, the

118
00:07:08,960 --> 00:07:12,640
Speaker 2: Healthcare CEO quote had it coming that you whack the

119
00:07:12,680 --> 00:07:16,200
Speaker 2: CEO at the annual bean counter convention. So that's all

120
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:19,840
Speaker 2: very critical evidence to prosecutors. There was an extended hearing

121
00:07:19,840 --> 00:07:22,160
Speaker 2: in December as to whether or not that evidence was

122
00:07:22,200 --> 00:07:23,400
Speaker 2: going to be admitted.

123
00:07:23,200 --> 00:07:26,760
Speaker 5: Into the state trial. The trial judge expects.

124
00:07:26,320 --> 00:07:29,320
Speaker 2: To rule on that decision in May, so the trial

125
00:07:29,400 --> 00:07:32,040
Speaker 2: judge is taking some time to make what is a

126
00:07:32,160 --> 00:07:35,280
Speaker 2: very critical decision about what evidence may or may not

127
00:07:35,320 --> 00:07:39,560
Speaker 2: be admitted in the state court. Interestingly, the very same

128
00:07:39,800 --> 00:07:43,080
Speaker 2: motion was argued in front of the federal judge, and

129
00:07:43,160 --> 00:07:47,360
Speaker 2: the judge rather expeditiously ruled that all of that evidence

130
00:07:47,440 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 2: will be admitted, denying the defense's argument that the police

131
00:07:51,120 --> 00:07:53,640
Speaker 2: improperly searched the bag without a warrant.

132
00:07:53,880 --> 00:07:56,280
Speaker 5: So that case, in some sense.

133
00:07:56,280 --> 00:07:59,320
Speaker 2: Is teed up and ready to go because that critical

134
00:07:59,360 --> 00:08:02,640
Speaker 2: decision about what evidence may be admitted the trial has

135
00:08:02,680 --> 00:08:06,600
Speaker 2: already been decided in federal court, but state court prosecutors

136
00:08:06,800 --> 00:08:10,120
Speaker 2: are adamant that their case should go first, based on

137
00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:13,120
Speaker 2: the theory that the New York Police Department investigated the

138
00:08:13,160 --> 00:08:17,640
Speaker 2: crime and federal prosecutors only became involved two weeks after

139
00:08:18,040 --> 00:08:18,600
Speaker 2: the murder.

140
00:08:19,000 --> 00:08:20,880
Speaker 5: They say that they have a greater.

141
00:08:20,760 --> 00:08:23,440
Speaker 2: Stake in the case, and in fact it's only the

142
00:08:23,480 --> 00:08:27,040
Speaker 2: state court case in which murder is being charged its

143
00:08:27,120 --> 00:08:31,800
Speaker 2: second degree murder. The federal charges are stalking charges, which

144
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:35,400
Speaker 2: carry a serious penalty because as a result of the

145
00:08:35,440 --> 00:08:39,200
Speaker 2: stalking a death occurred, but the murder charges are only

146
00:08:39,240 --> 00:08:42,319
Speaker 2: the state court charges, and so state court prosecutors are

147
00:08:42,360 --> 00:08:45,040
Speaker 2: saying that the case should be tried in state court first,

148
00:08:45,320 --> 00:08:48,800
Speaker 2: and that federal prosecutors should try the case only after

149
00:08:49,080 --> 00:08:51,520
Speaker 2: the Manhattan Die's Office completes their prosecution.

150
00:08:52,200 --> 00:08:56,320
Speaker 4: Mangioni had an outburst in court saying, this is double

151
00:08:56,440 --> 00:09:00,000
Speaker 4: jeopardy trying him twice. And the average person might look

152
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:03,400
Speaker 4: look at this and say, that's right. He's accused of

153
00:09:03,480 --> 00:09:07,840
Speaker 4: committing one crime, so why are both state and federal

154
00:09:07,880 --> 00:09:11,760
Speaker 4: prosecutors trying him for that crime? But the law of

155
00:09:11,840 --> 00:09:14,280
Speaker 4: double jeopardy isn't that simple.

156
00:09:14,960 --> 00:09:19,240
Speaker 2: Yeah, Double jeopardy is a nuanced concept in the law,

157
00:09:19,600 --> 00:09:21,120
Speaker 2: although it does have a.

158
00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:22,680
Speaker 5: Common sense understanding.

159
00:09:23,040 --> 00:09:27,600
Speaker 2: Basically, the Fifth Amendment precludes a person from being prosecuted

160
00:09:27,640 --> 00:09:31,640
Speaker 2: twice for the same offense, but there are some exceptions,

161
00:09:31,960 --> 00:09:35,880
Speaker 2: one of them being separate sovereigns. So, for example, if

162
00:09:35,880 --> 00:09:38,600
Speaker 2: the federal government and the state government want to prosecute

163
00:09:38,679 --> 00:09:42,520
Speaker 2: the same defendants for the same act, often that has

164
00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:44,800
Speaker 2: been permitted. If you go back to the days of

165
00:09:44,840 --> 00:09:48,400
Speaker 2: the civil rights movements, you may remember instances where a

166
00:09:48,400 --> 00:09:52,080
Speaker 2: white defendant was tried for the murder of a black

167
00:09:52,120 --> 00:09:54,680
Speaker 2: person and acquitted in state court, and then we saw

168
00:09:54,760 --> 00:09:58,600
Speaker 2: federal prosecutors come in and essentially tried the case again,

169
00:09:59,040 --> 00:10:02,840
Speaker 2: alleging civil rights violations in federal court and often could

170
00:10:02,840 --> 00:10:07,000
Speaker 2: get convictions in federal court when state court convictions were

171
00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:10,400
Speaker 2: not possible due to the makeup of the jury pool.

172
00:10:10,760 --> 00:10:15,040
Speaker 2: So there is a long history of cases that are

173
00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:20,040
Speaker 2: substantially similar being tried by different sovereigns, the federal government

174
00:10:20,240 --> 00:10:25,360
Speaker 2: and the state government. Interestingly, on the federal level, double jeopardy.

175
00:10:24,960 --> 00:10:26,640
Speaker 5: Is controlled by a nineteen.

176
00:10:26,400 --> 00:10:29,360
Speaker 2: Thirty two case called Blockbuster versus the United States that

177
00:10:29,440 --> 00:10:33,880
Speaker 2: basically says that if there are different statutory elements of

178
00:10:33,920 --> 00:10:37,640
Speaker 2: a crime, then you can be tried in separate cases. So,

179
00:10:37,679 --> 00:10:39,720
Speaker 2: in other words, if in state court you're being tried

180
00:10:39,760 --> 00:10:43,560
Speaker 2: for murder and there's certain elements to convict somebody for murder,

181
00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:46,720
Speaker 2: but you're being tried in federal court or violations of

182
00:10:46,760 --> 00:10:49,920
Speaker 2: someone's civil rights, and there are different elements, in other words,

183
00:10:50,080 --> 00:10:53,480
Speaker 2: prosecutors have to prove different facts in order to gain

184
00:10:53,520 --> 00:10:57,000
Speaker 2: a conviction, then those are considered separate crimes and do

185
00:10:57,120 --> 00:11:01,200
Speaker 2: not violate the double jeopardy clause. In New York State, however,

186
00:11:01,679 --> 00:11:04,840
Speaker 2: the laws of double jeopardy are actually broader than the

187
00:11:04,840 --> 00:11:09,000
Speaker 2: protection that the federal Constitution applies, and that's why we're

188
00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:14,440
Speaker 2: seeing this interesting interplay between the Mangone defense and federal

189
00:11:14,480 --> 00:11:18,320
Speaker 2: prosecutors saying that they would rather be tried in federal

190
00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:22,040
Speaker 2: court first because that will give them at least an

191
00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:25,640
Speaker 2: argument that the New York state case should be blocked

192
00:11:25,640 --> 00:11:30,160
Speaker 2: by the double jeopardy clause if the federal case proceeds first, and.

193
00:11:30,160 --> 00:11:33,360
Speaker 4: The New York state double jeopardy law is why this

194
00:11:33,559 --> 00:11:36,760
Speaker 4: fight over which trial goes first is so critical.

195
00:11:37,640 --> 00:11:40,800
Speaker 2: The New York state double jeopardy law is broader than

196
00:11:40,840 --> 00:11:44,400
Speaker 2: the federal constitution because under federal law, it looks at

197
00:11:44,400 --> 00:11:47,560
Speaker 2: that blockbuster test, which is only looking at elements of

198
00:11:47,600 --> 00:11:50,839
Speaker 2: a crime, while the New York state law looks at

199
00:11:50,840 --> 00:11:54,600
Speaker 2: the second prosecution as the same offense or the same

200
00:11:54,720 --> 00:11:58,559
Speaker 2: criminal transaction, and so it gives defense lawyers a chance

201
00:11:58,600 --> 00:12:01,880
Speaker 2: to argue that eve though the elements may be different,

202
00:12:02,040 --> 00:12:05,240
Speaker 2: it's really the same offense and the same criminal transaction.

203
00:12:05,840 --> 00:12:08,120
Speaker 2: In this case, my opinion is it will be an

204
00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:11,480
Speaker 2: uphill battle for the Manajary defense team to convince the

205
00:12:11,559 --> 00:12:13,640
Speaker 2: court that the New York State case is barred by

206
00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:16,880
Speaker 2: double jeopardy, but there's no question that they will have

207
00:12:16,960 --> 00:12:20,720
Speaker 2: a better argument if the federal case proceeds first, and

208
00:12:20,800 --> 00:12:23,600
Speaker 2: then they are in state court arguing that the state

209
00:12:23,640 --> 00:12:27,000
Speaker 2: prosecution is barred by the prior federal prosecution.

210
00:12:27,520 --> 00:12:30,760
Speaker 4: The defense attorney complained about the timing of the trials.

211
00:12:30,840 --> 00:12:34,040
Speaker 4: Right now, they're three months apart. If they go off

212
00:12:34,080 --> 00:12:38,400
Speaker 4: as scheduled. Karen Friedman Agnifolo told the state court Judge

213
00:12:38,400 --> 00:12:42,400
Speaker 4: Gregory Carow the defense will not be ready on June eighth,

214
00:12:42,440 --> 00:12:46,640
Speaker 4: and Judge Caro said be ready. Basically, having to prepare

215
00:12:46,720 --> 00:12:50,400
Speaker 4: for two trials at once does seem like a lot

216
00:12:50,480 --> 00:12:52,280
Speaker 4: for one defense team.

217
00:12:52,360 --> 00:12:57,000
Speaker 2: Generally, judges are pretty solicitous of defense lawyers who say

218
00:12:57,040 --> 00:12:58,679
Speaker 2: they need additional time.

219
00:12:58,480 --> 00:13:00,760
Speaker 5: To prepare for a trial, because what.

220
00:13:00,679 --> 00:13:03,000
Speaker 2: The judge does not want to have happened is they

221
00:13:03,040 --> 00:13:06,720
Speaker 2: go through an entire trial and ultimately there's a conviction,

222
00:13:07,240 --> 00:13:11,240
Speaker 2: for example, and then on appeal, the higher court looks

223
00:13:11,280 --> 00:13:14,840
Speaker 2: at the case and decides that the defense was not

224
00:13:15,080 --> 00:13:18,880
Speaker 2: provided adequate time to prepare for the defense, and the

225
00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:22,600
Speaker 2: whole case gets thrown out and has to be retried again.

226
00:13:22,880 --> 00:13:26,000
Speaker 2: So what we're seeing here is that the federal judge

227
00:13:26,280 --> 00:13:30,200
Speaker 2: set that September eighth date for the federal trial, and

228
00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:34,040
Speaker 2: the state court judge then counted backwards from that date

229
00:13:34,120 --> 00:13:37,439
Speaker 2: in order to set a trial beginning on June eighth,

230
00:13:37,520 --> 00:13:40,400
Speaker 2: to allow that trial to be completed first. But as

231
00:13:40,440 --> 00:13:43,679
Speaker 2: you say, the defense has strenuously argued that they will

232
00:13:43,720 --> 00:13:47,080
Speaker 2: not be ready by June eighth, and that it isn't

233
00:13:47,160 --> 00:13:50,280
Speaker 2: under burden for them to have to try the state

234
00:13:50,320 --> 00:13:54,320
Speaker 2: court case only to then, approximately three weeks later, have

235
00:13:54,400 --> 00:13:57,240
Speaker 2: to be sitting in federal court ready for another trial.

236
00:13:57,440 --> 00:14:00,240
Speaker 2: What the defense is arguing is that the defense men's

237
00:14:00,320 --> 00:14:03,960
Speaker 2: team is unfairly burdened because they have to prepare for

238
00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:08,080
Speaker 2: two trials, while prosecutors only have to prepare for one

239
00:14:08,120 --> 00:14:08,800
Speaker 2: trial each.

240
00:14:09,640 --> 00:14:12,319
Speaker 4: Also, Bob, you talked before about how the state court

241
00:14:12,440 --> 00:14:16,720
Speaker 4: judge hasn't decided yet about whether that critical evidence from

242
00:14:16,720 --> 00:14:20,440
Speaker 4: the backpack will come in at trial. Judge Caro said

243
00:14:20,440 --> 00:14:23,920
Speaker 4: he's going to make the decision by May eighteenth, but

244
00:14:23,960 --> 00:14:27,000
Speaker 4: they're supposed to go to trial on June eighth, even

245
00:14:27,040 --> 00:14:30,560
Speaker 4: though it's unlikely that the judge is going to suppress

246
00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:35,520
Speaker 4: that critical evidence. Shouldn't the defense know that definitively, While

247
00:14:35,560 --> 00:14:36,840
Speaker 4: they're preparing for trial.

248
00:14:37,400 --> 00:14:40,760
Speaker 2: Now, you're exactly right, and the federal judge has already

249
00:14:40,880 --> 00:14:44,560
Speaker 2: occurrent argument on that very issue and allow that evidence

250
00:14:44,600 --> 00:14:47,080
Speaker 2: to be admitted, So I think we can expect the

251
00:14:47,120 --> 00:14:50,160
Speaker 2: state cort judge to rule the same way. It would

252
00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:53,280
Speaker 2: be a devastating blow to prosecutors if the state cort

253
00:14:53,360 --> 00:14:56,560
Speaker 2: judge were to suppress that critical evidence, and it would

254
00:14:56,600 --> 00:14:58,960
Speaker 2: make it much more difficult for them to gain a conviction.

255
00:14:59,240 --> 00:15:02,680
Speaker 2: But nonetheless, from the defense standpoint, if you don't know

256
00:15:02,760 --> 00:15:05,240
Speaker 2: for sure where that evidence is coming in until the

257
00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:07,520
Speaker 2: middle of May and you've got to begin the trial

258
00:15:07,720 --> 00:15:10,320
Speaker 2: in the beginning of June, it doesn't give you a

259
00:15:10,320 --> 00:15:13,320
Speaker 2: lot of time to reset your case and to prepare

260
00:15:13,360 --> 00:15:16,360
Speaker 2: for trial. And that's exactly what they're going to argue.

261
00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:18,800
Speaker 2: So it's going to be very interesting to see whether

262
00:15:18,840 --> 00:15:22,200
Speaker 2: these dates hold. One possible issue that could push the

263
00:15:22,280 --> 00:15:27,280
Speaker 2: dates back is that if federal prosecutors decide to appeal

264
00:15:27,400 --> 00:15:30,920
Speaker 2: the federal judges' decision to throw out the death penalty

265
00:15:31,000 --> 00:15:34,120
Speaker 2: charge in the federal case, the state cord judge said

266
00:15:34,160 --> 00:15:37,560
Speaker 2: that he would likewise move back the start of the

267
00:15:37,600 --> 00:15:41,320
Speaker 2: state cord trial, So it's possible that the defense team

268
00:15:41,560 --> 00:15:45,800
Speaker 2: will get additional time if federal prosecutors appeal that decision,

269
00:15:46,040 --> 00:15:48,360
Speaker 2: but they will still have the argument that they have

270
00:15:48,440 --> 00:15:51,360
Speaker 2: to try these cases in close succession, and that they're

271
00:15:51,400 --> 00:15:54,440
Speaker 2: not going to be adequately prepared to try both cases.

272
00:15:55,000 --> 00:15:58,360
Speaker 4: It'll be interesting to see whether either of these trials

273
00:15:58,400 --> 00:16:02,600
Speaker 4: goes off as scheduled. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert

274
00:16:02,640 --> 00:16:07,040
Speaker 4: Mintz of Macarter in English. Coming up next, a superstar

275
00:16:07,200 --> 00:16:11,320
Speaker 4: lawyer takes the stand at his criminal tax trial. This

276
00:16:11,480 --> 00:16:12,640
Speaker 4: is Bloomberg.

277
00:16:14,400 --> 00:16:17,760
Speaker 2: And his face lost all expression said, if you're going

278
00:16:17,840 --> 00:16:21,600
Speaker 2: to play the game, boy, you gotta learn to plead right.

279
00:16:22,240 --> 00:16:24,600
Speaker 1: You got to play the home.

280
00:16:26,000 --> 00:16:27,600
Speaker 3: No when the hold.

281
00:16:28,760 --> 00:16:30,720
Speaker 5: No, when the law a week.

282
00:16:31,480 --> 00:16:37,320
Speaker 4: No win rhyme. Superstar Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein took

283
00:16:37,360 --> 00:16:41,000
Speaker 4: the stand at his criminal tax trial, going all in

284
00:16:41,280 --> 00:16:45,280
Speaker 4: with extraordinarily high stakes, even higher than those at the

285
00:16:45,400 --> 00:16:49,760
Speaker 4: multimillion dollar poker games he played in. And poker is

286
00:16:49,800 --> 00:16:53,000
Speaker 4: at the center of the trial, where Goldstein is accused

287
00:16:53,000 --> 00:16:56,440
Speaker 4: of failing to report millions of dollars of his winnings

288
00:16:56,800 --> 00:16:59,480
Speaker 4: while living a double life as a member of the

289
00:16:59,520 --> 00:17:03,680
Speaker 4: elite Supreme Court bar who argued more than forty cases

290
00:17:03,720 --> 00:17:07,000
Speaker 4: before the High Court, and as a high stakes poker

291
00:17:07,080 --> 00:17:10,520
Speaker 4: player who won about twenty six million dollars in one

292
00:17:10,640 --> 00:17:14,560
Speaker 4: series of matches and walked through US customs carrying a

293
00:17:14,600 --> 00:17:18,920
Speaker 4: bag of nearly a million dollars in cash. Goldstein knows

294
00:17:19,000 --> 00:17:22,679
Speaker 4: the odds and the risks of taking the stand and

295
00:17:22,800 --> 00:17:27,000
Speaker 4: opening himself up to cross examination, but he's gambling that

296
00:17:27,040 --> 00:17:30,760
Speaker 4: the jury will believe him and acquit him. Joining me

297
00:17:30,800 --> 00:17:34,600
Speaker 4: is Bloomberg Law senior reporter Holly Barker, who's covering the

298
00:17:34,640 --> 00:17:39,960
Speaker 4: Goldstein trial. Holly start by telling us about how shocked

299
00:17:40,000 --> 00:17:43,560
Speaker 4: the legal world was when Goldstein was indicted.

300
00:17:44,440 --> 00:17:46,240
Speaker 1: Tom Goldstein is a legal rock star.

301
00:17:46,480 --> 00:17:49,719
Speaker 3: He's argued more than forty cases before the U. S.

302
00:17:49,720 --> 00:17:53,720
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, and he got there a really unlikely route.

303
00:17:54,160 --> 00:17:57,840
Speaker 3: Most people who make it to the Supreme Court who

304
00:17:57,880 --> 00:18:01,159
Speaker 3: are that kind of elite lawyer also went to elite

305
00:18:01,280 --> 00:18:04,239
Speaker 3: law schools and they clerked for Supreme Court justices and

306
00:18:04,280 --> 00:18:07,880
Speaker 3: so on, and he sort of got there through pure hustle.

307
00:18:08,119 --> 00:18:11,000
Speaker 3: He would identify cases that he thought were likely to

308
00:18:11,040 --> 00:18:14,520
Speaker 3: get taken up by scotus, and he would cold call

309
00:18:14,640 --> 00:18:16,760
Speaker 3: the people involved in the case and sort of pitch

310
00:18:16,840 --> 00:18:19,080
Speaker 3: himself as the best person to take it up, and

311
00:18:19,080 --> 00:18:21,399
Speaker 3: that's kind of how he built his career. He was

312
00:18:21,440 --> 00:18:24,000
Speaker 3: also the co founder of the same called Scotus Blog,

313
00:18:24,359 --> 00:18:27,280
Speaker 3: which is a website that sort of covers all things

314
00:18:27,520 --> 00:18:31,840
Speaker 3: Supreme Court and became a really critical resource for people

315
00:18:31,840 --> 00:18:36,280
Speaker 3: in the legal world. So when he was indicted last

316
00:18:36,359 --> 00:18:40,760
Speaker 3: year on twenty two counts a combination of tax charges

317
00:18:40,960 --> 00:18:44,600
Speaker 3: and allegations that he made a false statement in connection

318
00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:46,920
Speaker 3: with loan applications.

319
00:18:46,359 --> 00:18:47,240
Speaker 1: People were shocked.

320
00:18:47,560 --> 00:18:51,399
Speaker 3: Those charges have been winnowed since they initially dropped. He

321
00:18:51,520 --> 00:18:54,480
Speaker 3: is presently on trial for one count of tax evasion

322
00:18:54,640 --> 00:18:58,159
Speaker 3: for twenty sixteen at counts of aiding and assisting in

323
00:18:58,200 --> 00:19:01,160
Speaker 3: a preparation of false and foudulate tax returns for twenty

324
00:19:01,200 --> 00:19:04,600
Speaker 3: seventeen through twenty twenty one, four counts of a full

325
00:19:04,640 --> 00:19:07,520
Speaker 3: failure to pay taxes and that's for tax years twenty seventeen,

326
00:19:08,119 --> 00:19:11,760
Speaker 3: twenty nineteen, twenty twenty and twenty twenty one, and three

327
00:19:11,760 --> 00:19:14,480
Speaker 3: counts of making a false statement on a loan application.

328
00:19:15,119 --> 00:19:17,800
Speaker 4: How did he get into this world of high stakes

329
00:19:17,880 --> 00:19:20,720
Speaker 4: poker and how much money did he make from playing?

330
00:19:21,200 --> 00:19:23,840
Speaker 3: So it had an interest in gambling like he would

331
00:19:23,840 --> 00:19:27,040
Speaker 3: play poker with people in his law firm.

332
00:19:27,480 --> 00:19:28,639
Speaker 1: You know, he was interested in it.

333
00:19:28,640 --> 00:19:30,240
Speaker 3: There was a period of time, I think in the

334
00:19:30,240 --> 00:19:33,119
Speaker 3: early aughts where poker was getting televised on TV and

335
00:19:33,160 --> 00:19:35,560
Speaker 3: it was sort of gaining in popularity. You know, he

336
00:19:35,880 --> 00:19:39,240
Speaker 3: represented people in the poker world. You know, one of

337
00:19:39,280 --> 00:19:43,400
Speaker 3: his clients is featured heavily in this trial incidentally, but

338
00:19:43,440 --> 00:19:47,119
Speaker 3: it wasn't really until twenty sixteen until he started playing

339
00:19:47,160 --> 00:19:52,160
Speaker 3: these like massive, multi million dollar hands and that's sort

340
00:19:52,200 --> 00:19:55,320
Speaker 3: of when things surfaced for him. And at trial, since

341
00:19:55,359 --> 00:19:58,800
Speaker 3: he's taken the stand, it came out that in twenty

342
00:19:58,800 --> 00:20:03,520
Speaker 3: fourteen he had a pulmonary embolism and almost died. And

343
00:20:04,000 --> 00:20:06,800
Speaker 3: after that happened, and I'm paraphrasing here, but he sort

344
00:20:06,800 --> 00:20:08,800
Speaker 3: of felt like I've got to seize life. And he

345
00:20:09,000 --> 00:20:11,120
Speaker 3: went on to say I may have overcooked that a bit,

346
00:20:11,480 --> 00:20:14,800
Speaker 3: but that's sort of what led to his gambling in

347
00:20:14,920 --> 00:20:17,320
Speaker 3: his sort of peak year in twenty sixteen, although it

348
00:20:17,400 --> 00:20:21,119
Speaker 3: continued for years after that with him mostly losing, but

349
00:20:21,160 --> 00:20:22,280
Speaker 3: that's sort of where it started.

350
00:20:22,720 --> 00:20:25,200
Speaker 4: Just tell us about how high the stakes were. I mean,

351
00:20:25,240 --> 00:20:28,199
Speaker 4: there was one instance where he carried a bag of

352
00:20:28,280 --> 00:20:32,639
Speaker 4: cash almost a million dollars in cash through US customs

353
00:20:32,680 --> 00:20:34,719
Speaker 4: from Hong Kong. I mean, what kind of money are

354
00:20:34,760 --> 00:20:36,000
Speaker 4: we talking about.

355
00:20:36,359 --> 00:20:40,720
Speaker 3: Well, so the bag of cash, Goldstein says, was actually

356
00:20:40,920 --> 00:20:45,040
Speaker 3: alone from a former client who's very grateful to him

357
00:20:45,040 --> 00:20:47,240
Speaker 3: for getting him off of criminal charges. It was a

358
00:20:47,280 --> 00:20:49,480
Speaker 3: loan to pay his taxes, is what he says. But

359
00:20:49,760 --> 00:20:53,800
Speaker 3: to answer your question, he played Alec Goriz in twenty

360
00:20:53,880 --> 00:20:57,919
Speaker 3: sixteen and won around twenty six million from him in

361
00:20:57,960 --> 00:21:00,480
Speaker 3: a series of matches. To give you like a rough

362
00:21:00,560 --> 00:21:03,480
Speaker 3: sense of the kind of dollar figures we're talking about.

363
00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:08,760
Speaker 4: The prosecution presented more than a dozen witnesses, from irs

364
00:21:08,880 --> 00:21:14,040
Speaker 4: agents and accountants to professional poker players and real estate moguls,

365
00:21:14,119 --> 00:21:18,920
Speaker 4: and even one movie star, Toby maguire of Spider Man fame,

366
00:21:19,240 --> 00:21:21,960
Speaker 4: who were the most important witnesses for the prosecution.

367
00:21:23,160 --> 00:21:27,480
Speaker 3: I think the most important witnesses in this trial for

368
00:21:27,560 --> 00:21:33,800
Speaker 3: the government were likely the accountants at Goldstein's outside accounting firm.

369
00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:38,000
Speaker 3: His defense, You know there were errors on his tax returns.

370
00:21:38,040 --> 00:21:42,159
Speaker 3: He's not disputing that there were transactions that should have

371
00:21:42,160 --> 00:21:45,520
Speaker 3: been characterized differently, either should have been characterized as income

372
00:21:46,119 --> 00:21:49,920
Speaker 3: or shouldn't have been deducted as business expenses and there's

373
00:21:49,960 --> 00:21:52,439
Speaker 3: only a handful of them eight to be exact, and

374
00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:55,920
Speaker 3: he's saying, look, yes, those should have been characterized differently,

375
00:21:56,240 --> 00:21:58,600
Speaker 3: But it wasn't my fault. I was relying on my

376
00:21:58,680 --> 00:22:02,400
Speaker 3: outside accountants and my managers. If they had any questions,

377
00:22:02,440 --> 00:22:05,199
Speaker 3: I would answer them. I would answer them honestly and

378
00:22:05,240 --> 00:22:07,399
Speaker 3: to the best of my ability. And they were the

379
00:22:07,400 --> 00:22:10,520
Speaker 3: ones dropping the ball on this. So in that respect,

380
00:22:10,920 --> 00:22:14,160
Speaker 3: getting the accountants on the stand to sort of explain

381
00:22:14,200 --> 00:22:17,720
Speaker 3: what their process was and the efforts that they made

382
00:22:18,200 --> 00:22:20,880
Speaker 3: to get his returns right was really important, I think

383
00:22:20,880 --> 00:22:24,200
Speaker 3: for the government. But I will say that the cross

384
00:22:24,240 --> 00:22:29,159
Speaker 3: examination of both of the accountants that they called was

385
00:22:29,280 --> 00:22:33,320
Speaker 3: super effective. They highlighted mistakes that the accountants made that

386
00:22:33,600 --> 00:22:36,119
Speaker 3: hurt gold Scene that he didn't catch in terms of

387
00:22:36,520 --> 00:22:40,280
Speaker 3: his tax liabilities, and they didn't follow up and ask

388
00:22:40,320 --> 00:22:46,240
Speaker 3: specific questions. Cravis gold Scene's lead defense layer just sort

389
00:22:46,240 --> 00:22:46,960
Speaker 3: of took it apart.

390
00:22:47,680 --> 00:22:50,760
Speaker 4: You know, I have to ask you about Toby McGuire's testimony.

391
00:22:51,440 --> 00:22:53,720
Speaker 4: He's known as a high stakes poker player.

392
00:22:54,240 --> 00:22:56,879
Speaker 1: The test on Toby McGuire was brief.

393
00:22:57,440 --> 00:23:01,080
Speaker 3: Toby maguire took the stand to testify about a five

394
00:23:01,200 --> 00:23:04,919
Speaker 3: hundred thousand dollars legal fee that he owed to gold

395
00:23:04,920 --> 00:23:10,960
Speaker 3: Steine after gold Stcene helped McGuire recover significant gambling debt

396
00:23:11,240 --> 00:23:13,280
Speaker 3: from Andy Beal, who's a.

397
00:23:13,200 --> 00:23:14,280
Speaker 1: Billionaire in Texas.

398
00:23:14,520 --> 00:23:17,479
Speaker 3: So he won fifteen point six million dollars in poker,

399
00:23:17,960 --> 00:23:19,800
Speaker 3: about half of that was his bill.

400
00:23:19,920 --> 00:23:22,280
Speaker 1: Didn't want to pay, so he hires gold Scene.

401
00:23:22,400 --> 00:23:26,200
Speaker 3: Gold Scene does the job, gets a successful result, McGuire

402
00:23:26,280 --> 00:23:29,440
Speaker 3: gets paid, and gold Stcene has this five hundred thousand

403
00:23:29,480 --> 00:23:33,480
Speaker 3: dollars fee. But instead of having McGuire send the fee

404
00:23:33,520 --> 00:23:36,920
Speaker 3: to him, he had McGuire send the money directly to

405
00:23:36,960 --> 00:23:40,879
Speaker 3: someone to whom Goldstein owned a gambling debt. So the

406
00:23:40,960 --> 00:23:43,280
Speaker 3: idea was to have him come in and testify about

407
00:23:43,320 --> 00:23:47,200
Speaker 3: this transaction that was ultimately misclassified. But again, you know,

408
00:23:47,440 --> 00:23:51,480
Speaker 3: gold Stcene isn't disputing that certain transactions were misclassified or

409
00:23:51,520 --> 00:23:55,679
Speaker 3: that he directed this fee from McGuire to somebody to

410
00:23:55,720 --> 00:23:58,639
Speaker 3: whom he owned a debt. What he's saying is the

411
00:23:58,680 --> 00:24:00,720
Speaker 3: way that it was classified on my tax return is

412
00:24:00,760 --> 00:24:01,359
Speaker 3: not my fault.

413
00:24:01,440 --> 00:24:04,000
Speaker 1: It was an error, but it wasn't an intentional error.

414
00:24:04,560 --> 00:24:08,840
Speaker 4: So I mean, he paid taxes every year, he got

415
00:24:08,880 --> 00:24:12,440
Speaker 4: extensions when he had to, and he even paid penalties

416
00:24:12,840 --> 00:24:13,800
Speaker 4: and interest.

417
00:24:14,320 --> 00:24:14,760
Speaker 1: That's right.

418
00:24:14,840 --> 00:24:17,560
Speaker 3: So he's all paid up on the taxiers at issue

419
00:24:17,560 --> 00:24:20,000
Speaker 3: now and he paid with interest in penalties, and he

420
00:24:20,119 --> 00:24:23,040
Speaker 3: testified that total of million dollars the interest in the

421
00:24:23,040 --> 00:24:26,800
Speaker 3: penalties that he's paid over the life of these late taxes.

422
00:24:27,840 --> 00:24:31,360
Speaker 4: So, as we've said, Goldstein took the stand in his

423
00:24:31,400 --> 00:24:33,639
Speaker 4: own defense. What was his demeanor like?

424
00:24:34,840 --> 00:24:37,240
Speaker 1: He was calm and collected.

425
00:24:37,840 --> 00:24:41,119
Speaker 3: He was a little bit self deprecating at points, particularly

426
00:24:41,119 --> 00:24:44,439
Speaker 3: when he was talking about his gambling losses. He and

427
00:24:44,480 --> 00:24:47,040
Speaker 3: this is just my perspective. The jurors may have a

428
00:24:47,040 --> 00:24:50,080
Speaker 3: different perspective. I thought he came across as very credible.

429
00:24:50,880 --> 00:24:52,919
Speaker 3: That said, you know, maybe he will come across as

430
00:24:53,040 --> 00:24:56,800
Speaker 3: less credible cross examination. But he has not done any

431
00:24:56,880 --> 00:24:58,760
Speaker 3: violence to his defense yet.

432
00:25:00,080 --> 00:25:03,000
Speaker 4: Dent is critical in this trial. So how did he

433
00:25:03,040 --> 00:25:05,800
Speaker 4: explain what his intent was or wasn't.

434
00:25:06,320 --> 00:25:08,879
Speaker 3: So this whole case is turning on what was in

435
00:25:08,960 --> 00:25:12,080
Speaker 3: his mind, and so the point of him taking this stand,

436
00:25:12,200 --> 00:25:14,679
Speaker 3: I think is to fill those gaps. I think one

437
00:25:14,720 --> 00:25:18,560
Speaker 3: of the most surprising things he testified to is so

438
00:25:18,640 --> 00:25:22,680
Speaker 3: he walked the jurors through his gambling in twenty sixteen

439
00:25:22,840 --> 00:25:27,200
Speaker 3: and through this allegedly secret gambling ledger that actually he'd

440
00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:29,919
Speaker 3: asked one of his law froom managers to email him

441
00:25:29,920 --> 00:25:33,040
Speaker 3: at some point like it wasn't really this secret gambling ledger,

442
00:25:33,119 --> 00:25:35,639
Speaker 3: he said. And he also said that the origin of

443
00:25:35,640 --> 00:25:38,840
Speaker 3: the ledger was because his accountant had suggested that maybe

444
00:25:38,880 --> 00:25:41,679
Speaker 3: they needed to send ten ninety nine's to people he

445
00:25:41,720 --> 00:25:45,040
Speaker 3: had sent money to for saking payments or gambling losses.

446
00:25:45,320 --> 00:25:47,399
Speaker 3: They decided they didn't need to ultimately do that, but

447
00:25:47,440 --> 00:25:49,040
Speaker 3: that was sort of the origin its ledger.

448
00:25:49,200 --> 00:25:51,000
Speaker 1: So he walks, we walks.

449
00:25:50,800 --> 00:25:53,160
Speaker 3: The jerors through the ledger, and then he fills in

450
00:25:53,280 --> 00:25:57,040
Speaker 3: some of the gaps and explains like where different errors were,

451
00:25:57,280 --> 00:25:59,320
Speaker 3: like what he was trying to assemble and why there

452
00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:01,119
Speaker 3: were question marks in certain places.

453
00:26:01,520 --> 00:26:03,280
Speaker 1: He also referred to and this.

454
00:26:03,359 --> 00:26:06,160
Speaker 3: The government has objected and hasn't made it into evidence.

455
00:26:06,640 --> 00:26:10,080
Speaker 3: This ledger that he maintained with this guy Paul Flaw,

456
00:26:10,160 --> 00:26:13,800
Speaker 3: who was one of his former clients, ultra wealthy Malaysian

457
00:26:13,880 --> 00:26:17,480
Speaker 3: Chinese businessman, and they had this sort of ongoing gambling

458
00:26:17,560 --> 00:26:20,720
Speaker 3: relationship and they had this virtual ledger where they sort

459
00:26:20,760 --> 00:26:24,119
Speaker 3: of tracked everything that they owed one another. So he

460
00:26:24,200 --> 00:26:26,800
Speaker 3: was able to sort of refresh his memory using that

461
00:26:27,480 --> 00:26:32,760
Speaker 3: what he actually reported on his twenty sixteen return for

462
00:26:32,880 --> 00:26:36,880
Speaker 3: gambling income was two point seven million. An IRS expert

463
00:26:37,080 --> 00:26:40,960
Speaker 3: who testified earlier this week, she said he should have

464
00:26:41,040 --> 00:26:45,359
Speaker 3: reported six point two million and gambling winnings on his return. Wednesday,

465
00:26:45,920 --> 00:26:48,600
Speaker 3: he told Juers that in fact, he should have reported

466
00:26:48,880 --> 00:26:52,800
Speaker 3: zero income on his tax return because he had screwed

467
00:26:52,880 --> 00:26:56,160
Speaker 3: up his gambling calculations so badly that he was actually

468
00:26:56,200 --> 00:26:56,880
Speaker 3: in the negative.

469
00:26:57,320 --> 00:26:59,880
Speaker 4: Is that all about the numbers or is that.

470
00:26:59,800 --> 00:27:04,199
Speaker 3: All about the numbers and understanding what the numbers meant.

471
00:27:04,440 --> 00:27:06,960
Speaker 3: So the government's looking at these numbers, but they don't

472
00:27:07,040 --> 00:27:11,520
Speaker 3: understand whose money belonged to who. So for example, he

473
00:27:11,640 --> 00:27:14,560
Speaker 3: might have like a money that he owes somebody who

474
00:27:14,680 --> 00:27:17,159
Speaker 3: staked him, you know, backed him at a game, and

475
00:27:17,440 --> 00:27:20,119
Speaker 3: you say he wins, and he's got their share of

476
00:27:20,160 --> 00:27:22,399
Speaker 3: the gambling winnings. You know, sometimes he would have it

477
00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:24,239
Speaker 3: for a while and they'd be like, no, don't pay me,

478
00:27:24,320 --> 00:27:24,960
Speaker 3: pay that guy.

479
00:27:25,520 --> 00:27:27,240
Speaker 1: So when the government's.

480
00:27:26,800 --> 00:27:29,920
Speaker 3: Like just looking at his bank accounts and looking at wires,

481
00:27:30,000 --> 00:27:32,639
Speaker 3: they're looking at a really incomplete picture. That's sort of

482
00:27:32,680 --> 00:27:35,399
Speaker 3: what he was getting across and he was filling in

483
00:27:35,440 --> 00:27:37,760
Speaker 3: those gaps, and by the time he was done filling

484
00:27:37,760 --> 00:27:40,119
Speaker 3: in those gaps, the mouth looked very different.

485
00:27:40,640 --> 00:27:44,840
Speaker 4: Were the prosecutors surprised by this or were they expecting it?

486
00:27:45,240 --> 00:27:46,800
Speaker 1: I think they were very surprised.

487
00:27:47,520 --> 00:27:51,280
Speaker 3: So Jonathan Cravis, again, this is a gold Stein sort

488
00:27:51,280 --> 00:27:53,520
Speaker 3: of lead defense layer. He's done most of the heavy

489
00:27:53,880 --> 00:27:57,000
Speaker 3: lifting in terms of cross examination so far, and he

490
00:27:57,080 --> 00:27:59,560
Speaker 3: did direct I mean he almost let out of his

491
00:27:59,600 --> 00:28:04,200
Speaker 3: seat when the government rested to announce that, oh, by

492
00:28:04,200 --> 00:28:06,639
Speaker 3: the way, here's our printed motion for acquittal and all

493
00:28:06,720 --> 00:28:10,320
Speaker 3: the exhibits, and mister Goldsetine intends to testify tomorrow. And

494
00:28:11,760 --> 00:28:15,280
Speaker 3: apparently he planned to do this the entire time. There

495
00:28:15,280 --> 00:28:19,000
Speaker 3: was never any doubt from the defense team that he

496
00:28:19,080 --> 00:28:22,360
Speaker 3: was going to testify. And the reason I say that

497
00:28:22,400 --> 00:28:25,400
Speaker 3: the government was definitely surprised is because in the course

498
00:28:25,440 --> 00:28:28,160
Speaker 3: of making different arguments, like mostly about whether.

499
00:28:28,040 --> 00:28:29,920
Speaker 1: Or not evidence is going to come in, etc. Etc.

500
00:28:30,720 --> 00:28:32,919
Speaker 3: They've said, well, you know, he's trying to smuggle in

501
00:28:33,480 --> 00:28:36,160
Speaker 3: exculpatory statements. He's you know, he's not going to take

502
00:28:36,200 --> 00:28:38,600
Speaker 3: the stand, and so he's trying to get you know,

503
00:28:38,680 --> 00:28:40,280
Speaker 3: his own thinking in other ways.

504
00:28:40,640 --> 00:28:41,680
Speaker 1: YadA YadA YadA.

505
00:28:41,880 --> 00:28:43,840
Speaker 3: You know, it was very clear that the government did

506
00:28:43,840 --> 00:28:45,560
Speaker 3: not think that he would subject himself to this.

507
00:28:46,360 --> 00:28:51,000
Speaker 4: Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter Holly Barker,

508
00:28:51,640 --> 00:28:53,960
Speaker 4: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

509
00:28:54,320 --> 00:28:56,680
Speaker 4: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

510
00:28:56,720 --> 00:29:01,000
Speaker 4: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple podcas, Spotify,

511
00:29:01,200 --> 00:29:06,240
Speaker 4: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,

512
00:29:06,640 --> 00:29:09,200
Speaker 4: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

513
00:29:09,240 --> 00:29:13,160
Speaker 4: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

514
00:29:13,280 --> 00:29:14,920
Speaker 4: and you're listening to Bloomberg