Tom Goldstein Prosecutors Violated Disclosure Duty, Judge Says

Prosecutors in Tom Goldstein’s tax and false statements case violated federal law by failing to turn over an email between their lead case agent and one of Goldstein’s accountants, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby said.

The failure violated prosecutors’ duty to disclose exculpatory information in their possession to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, the US District Court for the District of Maryland judge said in a written order Thursday after ruling from the bench Wednesday morning.

The government, which had argued its position orally, asked early Thursday if it could submit written briefing, but Griggsby wasn’t receptive.

“I’m never going to say you can’t be heard, but the court has ruled—I’m not going to revisit the issue,” she said. “I gave the government a chance to be heard yesterday and you said you were ready to go.”

The government told her it intends to file something anyway to “correct the record.” It said the defense’s description of the email—which relates to the government’s efforts to find documents showing that Goldstein’s law firm reviewed the classification of firm expenditures—was misleading.

The government also said the email is immaterial in any event because the government “isn’t even rebutting” that Goldstein never directly told an accountant to mischaracterize an expenditure. The issue is that Goldstein failed to provide the information firm managers needed in order to help his accountants properly characterize firm transactions, the government said.

Griggsby concluded that the email—which was attached to Goldstein’s motion—was “at least potentially exculpatory” because it seems to support Goldstein’s claim that he wasn’t directly involved in any of the alleged errors on his tax returns and that his accountants were responsible for preparing those documents.

The defense will therefore have wide latitude when they cross-examine the accountant and can use the email in their closing, she said. A jury instruction allowing it to draw adverse inferences from the government’s failure to turn the email over “is probably appropriate,” but the parties will need to work out what the language will be, she also said.

Evidentiary Gaps

Goldstein only received the email because the defense subpoenaed the accounting firm, GRF CPAs & Advisors, directly.

At opening, Goldstein’s lawyer told jurors that they’d made efforts to obtain other GRF documents, including internal communications, but learned they were deleted about six months before trial began.

The requested documents were apparently not among those the government had asked for when it obtained records from GRF.

Based on its opening statement and questioning on cross-examination, the defense is trying to convince jurors the government had tunnel vision and conducted a sloppy investigation.

The government’s failure to hand over the email may help tell that story, no matter how it interprets the substance of the email.

The government said it thinks it will be able to conclude its case in chief by the end of next week.

Goldstein is represented by Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.

The case is United States v. Goldstein, D. Md., No. 8:25-cr-00006, 1/29/26.