United States v. William A. Goldstein, 989 F.3d 1178

Background

Goldstein and Bercoon ran two related frauds: a March–May 2010 “pump-and-dump” of MedCareers Group, Inc. (MCGI) stock and a private-offering fraud involving Find.com, raising about $1.5–$2.5 million in proceeds.
The SEC opened a civil inquiry; SEC attorney Brunson interviewed Goldstein (June 30, 2010) and sent Form 1662 explaining that interviews are voluntary and may be shared with other agencies.
The U.S. Attorney and FBI opened a criminal probe in 2010 based on cooperating witnesses (Rosenberg, Weiner), trading records, phone records, and Hotstocked.com reporting; FBI obtained Title III wiretaps on phones used by Bercoon and Veugeler in mid–late 2011 supported by affidavits from SA Taylor.
After a 10-day trial, the jury convicted both defendants on 12 of 13 counts (including conspiracy, mail/wire fraud, and securities fraud) and acquitted them of money laundering; each received 10-year sentences, restitution (~$1.5M), and a joint-and-several forfeiture order (~$1.95M).
On appeal defendants challenged (inter alia) the wiretap authorizations (probable cause/necessity), denial of Franks hearings, alleged material variance between indictment and proof, prosecutorial misconduct, admissibility of Goldstein’s SEC statements, improper merger of civil/criminal probes, and joint forfeiture under Honeycutt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't)	Defendants' Argument	Held
Admissibility of wiretap evidence (probable cause/staleness)	Affidavit showed ongoing conspiracy (recent calls, March 2011 trading spike) so probable cause was timely.	Probable cause was stale—most charged acts were in 2010 and the June 2011 wiretap was too remote.	Probable cause was not stale under the totality of circumstances; magistrate reasonably found fresh indications of ongoing conduct.
Necessity for wiretap & good‑faith exception	Affidavits detailed why other techniques (records, CI, subpoenas, surveillance) were insufficient; even if infirm, officers reasonably relied on court orders.	Wiretap unnecessary given SEC data and other investigative tools; affidavits relied on SEC/LADP materials not disclosed.	Necessity requirement satisfied; good‑faith exception applies—no Franks showing of deliberate/reckless omissions.
Franks hearing (omissions/misleading statements)	No deliberate or reckless omission; defendants failed to identify material omissions that would negate probable cause or necessity.	Affidavit omitted LADP materials and that defendants divested MCGI interest—warranting an evidentiary Franks hearing.	Denial of Franks hearing affirmed: defendants did not make the substantial preliminary showing required.
Material variance between indictment and trial proof (Find.com)	Indictment broadly alleged misrepresentations about use of proceeds and marketing materials; trial evidence elaborated consistent misstatements.	Government introduced additional misrepresentations (technology, Cynthia White, Scientigo) not charged—material variance prejudiced defense.	No material variance: additional misstatements were consistent with the charged scheme and defendants were not unfairly surprised.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing and grand jury	Closing remarks and grand‑jury presentation were within bounds; any imprecision was harmless given trial record.	Prosecutor misstated evidence in closing and grand jury agent testified falsely, warranting reversal/dismissal.	No plain error: challenged remarks were fair rebuttal or harmless; grand‑jury irregularities did not substantially influence the indictment.
Forfeiture—joint and several liability post‑Honeycutt	Forfeiture limited to proceeds defendants personally obtained; district court found both had access/control over the accounts and thus each acquired the proceeds.	Honeycutt forbids joint/several forfeiture of proceeds only acquired by co‑conspirator.	Even applying Honeycutt, forfeiture upheld: proceeds were jointly controlled/obtained and the order was capped so Govt may not recover more than total proceeds.
Goldstein’s SEC statements & merged investigations	Brunson read the Privacy Act script and Form 1662 warned that statements may be shared; statements voluntary; parallel SEC/FBI coordination lawful.	Brunson’s statements promised confidentiality, coercing incriminating statements; SEC–criminal probe merger violated due process.	Suppression denied: Brunson warned Goldstein statements could be shared; no prima facie showing of bad‑faith merger—no evidentiary hearing required.

Key Cases Cited

Vista Mktg., LLC v. Burkett, 812 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2016) (wiretap must meet Fourth Amendment requirements)
United States v. Maxi, 886 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2018) (necessity requirement for wiretaps explained)
United States v. Hawkins, 934 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2019) (review of wiretap affidavits under practical, commonsense reading)
United States v. Emmanuel, 565 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for wiretap suppression rulings)
United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) (staleness and timing for wiretap probable cause)
United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2000) (staleness analysis is fact‑intensive and depends on conspiracy/continuity)
United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568 (11th Cir. 2011) (partial success of other techniques does not foreclose wiretap necessity)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requires preliminary showing of deliberate/reckless falsehoods or omissions to obtain evidentiary hearing)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (forfeiture under §853 limited to property defendant personally acquired)
United States v. Cingari, 952 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2020) (application of Honeycutt reasoning to civil‑forfeiture context)