Arguing bad jury instructions, counsel for SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein seek his release
Lawyers for convicted attorney Tom Goldstein, a SCOTUSblog co-founder who was found guilty in February of tax evasion and making false statements on loan applications, have filed an appeal asking that he be released from incarceration. He is pictured here in 2017 in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo by Steve Ruark/AP Content Services for the Carolina Alumni Review)
Lawyers for convicted attorney Tom Goldstein, a SCOTUSblog co-founder who was found guilty in February of tax evasion and making false statements on loan applications, have filed an appeal asking that he be released from incarceration.
In July, Goldstein was sentenced to a six-year prison sentence, and the trial judge denied a post-trial motion that he be released while his appeal was pending.
According to his sentencing memo, Goldstein, who argued many U.S. Supreme Court cases, maintains his innocence regarding the tax convictions, and he has a legal defense for the mortgage convictions. The memo asked that he receive home confinement or a sentence of supervision, with conditions that let him repay his debts and address a gambling addiction. Goldstein is being held at the Federal Correctional Institution Petersburg, located in Hopewell, Virginia, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website.
The government asked that Goldstein receive an eight-year sentence and repay $3.1 million in restitution. His crimes include not reporting large poker wins; having clients wire money to people he owed money to, rather than his law firm Goldstein & Russell; and funneling money through offshore accounts, according to its sentencing memo.
Goldstein filed a notice of appeal in late July. His motion argues that he should be released from federal custody pending review because his trial was fundamentally flawed, Reuters and Law360 report.
The argument centers around “erroneous” jury instructions that violated Goldstein’s due process and “crippled” his defense. The motion was filed by Elizabeth B. Prelogar, a former U.S. solicitor general who now chairs the Supreme Court and appellate practice group at Cooley, and Jonathan Kravis of Liu Shur Kravis.
“First, the jury instructions violated due process by inviting jurors to convict Goldstein of accessory liability without specifying the elements required by [federal statute]. Second, the district court violated [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] by changing the relevant jury instructions after closing argument—stripping the defense of an opportunity to argue Goldstein’s innocence under the instructions actually given to the jury,” according to the motion.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
