A pivotal prosecution witness in the federal criminal case against prominent Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein saw his credibility sharply undermined under cross-examination, raising new questions about the strength of the government’s case and the handling of key evidence.

Bloomberg reports that at the center of the dispute is Walter Deyhle, a former accountant who prepared Goldstein’s tax returns and testified for the government regarding alleged underreporting of gambling winnings. Under questioning from the defense, Deyhle acknowledged that his earlier statements to investigators conflicted with documentary evidence, including a contemporaneous email from Goldstein describing significantly higher gambling income than Deyhle had initially conveyed. The defense emphasized that these discrepancies were material, particularly given the government’s reliance on Deyhle to establish intent and knowledge in its tax-related charges.

The cross-examination also exposed admitted errors in Deyhle’s tax preparation work, further eroding his reliability in the eyes of the jury. Defense counsel argued that these mistakes, combined with incomplete or inaccurate recollections, weakened the foundation of the prosecution’s narrative and cast doubt on whether Goldstein knowingly misled tax authorities.

Compounding matters, the defense accused prosecutors of failing to timely disclose information related to a meeting in which the incriminating email was first presented to Deyhle. The alleged disclosure lapse prompted a dispute over the government’s evidentiary obligations, with the court ordering additional briefing to determine whether any remedial action is warranted.

The proceedings additionally brought attention to testimony from a senior executive at Parabellum Capital, the litigation finance firm that previously provided financial assistance to Goldstein. The testimony offered rare insight into the nature of the funding arrangement, which included support to address tax liabilities and personal financial pressures. While not accused of wrongdoing, the funder’s involvement illustrated how litigation finance can intersect with personal financial distress in high-stakes legal matters.

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.