United States v. Luger, No. 15-2786 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child in Indian country. The court deferred to the district court's careful exercise of its discretion and concluded that the propensity testimony of two minors was properly admitted; the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government's motion for reconsideration where any possible error from the district court's ruling disqualifying the North Dakota U.S. Attorney's Office from participation in the case was harmless; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence based on the district court’s specific finding that the U.S. Attorney had been adequately screened from substantive involvement in defendant's prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of sexual assaults he committed on other minors even though the assaults were committed more than 25 years prior to trial; like the current assaults, the earlier assaults were made on victims of similar ages and under similar circumstances, involved members of defendant's extended family and occurred while defendant was in control of the minors; any possible error in granting the government's motion for reconsideration of the court's ruling disqualifying the North Dakota U.S. Attorney's Office from participation in the case was harmless as the motion was not made until after trial and the Office's participation in defendant's sentencing proceeding was not prejudicial in light of the fact that defendant received a below-guidelines sentence and does not request resentencing; the court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence indicating the name of the U.S. Attorney, who had a conflict, appeared in the signature block of some pleadings; based on the district court's specific finding that the U.S. Attorney had been adequately screened from substantial involvement in the case, defendant has not show that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial. Judge Colloton, concurring in the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.