United States v. Boedigheimer, No. 15-1613 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of laundering and conspiring to launder money, and making a false statement. Defendant had laundered drug proceeds received from his brother-in-law, Brandon Lusk, through his law firm, and then lied to an IRS agent about his financial arrangements with Lusk. When Lusk was investigated by authorities, defendant acted as his lawyer and advised him to hide the nature of their financial relationship. The court concluded that the district court acted well within its discretion to rule that a question implying that defendant had associated with a person later charged with criminal activity, even if improper, did not require a new trial. In this case, the question was half-finished and unanswered. Moreover, the other inculpatory evidence the jury heard was extensive. The court also concluded that the district court properly considered the fact that defendant put his own personal interests ahead of his clients, and that this factor was enough to justify the sentence imposed, even if it resulted in a sentence that was harsh in comparison to others involved in the drug trafficking operation. Finally, there is no indication that the district court punished defendant more harshly because he was a lawyer. 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 err in denying defendant's motion for new trial based on an unfinished question the prosecutor attempted to ask him during his cross-examination; the question was neither finished nor answered and the court gave a curative instruction; the court did not err in considering the fact that defendant abused the trust of his client in refusing to set a shorter sentence, and defendant's below-guidelines sentence is affirmed.
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.