Tom Goldstein’s Fate Heading to Jury Following Closing Arguments

Prolific US Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein engaged in a “textbook tax evasion scheme” that he executed “almost flawlessly,” prosecutors told jurors at the close of his criminal case Wednesday.

You don’t have to “check your common sense” at the door, Justice Department lawyer Sean Beaty told jurors at closing argument. “How is it possible that someone who can argue the most complex cases at the Supreme Court can’t understand his legal obligation to pay his taxes on time and not lie to the IRS?”

The trial, in its sixth week in the US District Court for the District of Maryland, will head to jurors for deliberations on Thursday.

Beaty cataloged instances that Goldstein had been dishonest with people in his life—something he’d also done while cross-examining the SCOTUSblog co-founder.

“If this case comes down to credibility, there is no reason to believe Tom Goldstein,” he said. “He lied to people when he wanted something from them,” and now he “wants something from this jury.”

Attacking the Investigation

Goldstein’s counsel, Jonathan Kravis, countered in his closing argument that the government was attempting to mislead jurors.

Among other things, the government attempted to mislead jurors about where the loan applications at issue were signed, Kravis said.

Travel records put Goldstein in the US Virgin Islands when one of the applications was signed, and records show another application was signed in Washington, DC.

The government’s only evidence that Goldstein was in Maryland when the other applications was signed is the IP address associated with the e-filing. But the IP address isn’t reliable because it was the same even when Goldstein was out of the country.

The government could have obtained cellphone data to place Goldstein, but they didn’t. It’s just another investigative step the government failed to take, Kravis said.

When Goldstein took the stand, and the prosecution finally had the chance to ask him any question it wanted to, it “flinched,” Kravis told the jury.

Instead of confronting Goldstein about his gambling calculations, misclassified transactions, or the “actual charges” in the case, they asked about his spending.

“Why? Because at the end of the day, they got nothing,” Kravis said.

The government relied entirely on statements made by one of Goldstein’s outside accountants without bothering to do its own investigation, he said. For years, the government had critical emails showing the accountant wasn’t telling the truth, but it didn’t look at them until halfway through this trial, he said, calling the failure “shocking” and “inept.”

Goldstein is facing one count of tax evasion for 2016, eight counts of assisting in the preparation of a false tax return for tax years 2017-2021, four counts of willful failure to pay taxes in 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021, and three counts of making a false statement on a loan application in 2021. He was indicted in January 2025. Jurors heard 15 days of evidence, with a day and a half of testimony from Goldstein.

Instructions

Although some new disputes arose during and after closing arguments that will need to be addressed Thursday morning, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby said she still plans to instruct jurors before lunch.

Each party scored some important victories at the jury charge conference that preceded closing arguments.

The government got a requested instruction on willful blindness, which tells jurors they may find Goldstein guilty if they find he deliberately avoided learning of the facts underlying the crime, over the defense’s objection. The defense argued it wasn’t appropriate, claiming there wasn’t enough evidence to justify its inclusion, but the objection was overruled.

And the defense got a remedial instruction telling jurors about the government’s failure to turn over an arguably exculpatory email.

The instruction, with the government strenuously objected to, advises jurors they can decide what weight, if any, to give to the government’s failure to comply with its discovery obligation.

Munger Tolles & Olson LLP represents Goldstein.

The case is United States v. Goldstein, D. Md., No. 8:25-cr-00006, 2/18/26.