## Facts

- Major-league baseball player Darryl Strawberry and his agent, Eric Goldschmidt, were charged in a three-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The indictment alleged a scheme to conceal cash income Strawberry earned at various appearance and endorsement events so that the income would not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service and federal income tax would be avoided.
- According to the indictment, Goldschmidt acted as Strawberry’s contractual agent, negotiated Strawberry’s baseball contracts, provided financial services, and prepared or assisted in preparing Strawberry’s federal income tax returns for 1988, 1989, and 1990.
- Counts Two and Three charged Goldschmidt with aiding and abetting Strawberry’s attempted tax evasion for tax years 1988 and 1989, alleging that the attempted evasion was carried out “by various means,” including Strawberry’s receipt of cash at events in the Southern District of New York.
- The relevant tax returns were allegedly prepared, signed, and filed in California, where Strawberry and Goldschmidt lived.
- Strawberry later pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion; the opinion resolved Goldschmidt’s pretrial motions.
- Goldschmidt moved to dismiss Counts Two and Three for improper venue under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18, arguing that none of the return-related acts occurred in the Southern District of New York and that neither defendant lived or worked there.
- Goldschmidt also argued that Strawberry’s alleged New York conduct—such as declining to sign a receipt for a cash payment and declining payment by check—was not deceptive on its face and therefore could not support venue.
- Goldschmidt further sought (1) a bill of particulars, (2) early production of Jencks Act material and impeachment material, and (3) early disclosure of prospective juror tax-information responses under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(5).

## Issues

1. Whether venue in the Southern District of New York was permissible for Counts Two and Three (aiding and abetting attempted tax evasion) where the returns were prepared, signed, and filed in California, but the indictment alleged receipt of unreported cash income in the Southern District of New York as part of the evasion scheme.
2. Whether Goldschmidt was entitled to a bill of particulars beyond the indictment and discovery.
3. Whether the court should order the government to provide Jencks Act witness statements and impeachment material before trial.
4. Whether the court should order early disclosure of juror-related tax-information responses under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(5).

## Decision

- The court denied Goldschmidt’s motion to dismiss Counts Two and Three for improper venue.
- The court denied Goldschmidt’s motion for a bill of particulars.
- The court denied Goldschmidt’s request for pretrial disclosure of Jencks Act material and impeachment material.
- The court denied Goldschmidt’s request for early disclosure of juror-information materials under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(5).

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 require trial in the district where the charged offense was committed.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), a “continuing” offense may be prosecuted in any district where it began, continued, or was completed.
- For venue purposes, tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 may be treated as a continuing offense when the alleged scheme includes acts occurring in more than one district.
- Venue may be supported by an act alleged to be part of the charged scheme in the district of prosecution even if the act, viewed alone, could have an innocent explanation; the indictment’s allegation that the act was done with intent to evade tax obligations is sufficient at the motion stage.
- The government bears the burden to prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A bill of particulars is required only when necessary to inform the defendant of the charge with enough detail to prepare for trial, avoid unfair surprise, and guard against double jeopardy; it is not a device to obtain the government’s evidence in advance.
- The Jencks Act generally does not require production of witness statements until after the witness testifies on direct examination, and courts typically do not order earlier disclosure absent a specific justification.
- Requests for early juror-information disclosure under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(5) may be denied when ordinary procedures are adequate and the defendant does not show a need for accelerated production.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Southern District of New York was an allowable venue for prosecuting Goldschmidt on aiding-and-abetting tax-evasion counts because the indictment alleged that Strawberry received unreported cash in the district as part of a continuing scheme to evade tax, and the court also declined to order a bill of particulars or to require accelerated disclosure of Jencks/impeachment materials or juror-information materials under § 6103(h)(5).


United States v. Strawberry, 892 F. Supp. 519 (1995)