Goldstein Shouldn’t Compel Grand Jury Testimony, DOJ Says (1)

Federal prosecutors and SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein are at odds over why he offered cryptocurrency to a potential witness in his criminal tax evasion case.

Goldstein hasn’t shown the “particularized need” to justify his “extraordinary” request that the government disclose grand jury testimony about the offer, prosecutors said.

The government opposed Goldstein’s motion to compel the testimony in his ongoing tax evasion case, saying there is “strikingly little need” for disclosure of the testimony. Department of Justice officials told the US District Court for the District of Maryland that it should deny the emergency motion, or alternatively, that the court should review it privately.

“Grand jury testimony is presumptively secret for good reason: disclosing such testimony here would undermine the fair and orderly resolution of this case and, more broadly, have a chilling effect on future grand jury witnesses who could not trust that their testimony would stay secret,” the government argued in its brief.

In the course of Goldstein’s challenge to a release condition subjecting his electronic devices to monitoring by pre-trial services, he said the allegation amounted to an accusation of witness tampering, something he has not been charged with. The witness, an assistant and office manager at his then-law firm, Goldstein & Russell, was offered the cryptocurrency to stay with the firm, Goldstein said.

The DOJ said in the brief that Goldstein hasn’t raised enough concern about the accuracy of the information to make further examination of the testimony necessary — even if he disagrees with the government’s contention that there was “no other credible reason” for the offer “other than to influence the witness regarding the ongoing criminal investigations,” which combined with Goldstein’s flight risk, makes it necessary to monitor his devices.

Goldstein was indicted in January for tax evasion and making false statements on a loan application. The government has made other accusations, including that he concealed gambling-related income and claimed personal expenditures as law firm business expenses.

The case is United States v. Goldstein, D. Md., No. 8:25-cr-00006, opposition to emergency motion to compel 3/14/25.