United States v. Jason Bo-Alan Beckman
787 F.3d 466
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Five investors orchestrated a multi-year partial Ponzi scheme collecting over $193 million from hundreds of investors.
- Beckman, Durand, and Kiley went to trial after Cook and Pettengill pled guilty; jury convicted all on fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering.
- Oxford and UBS-related entities were used to convey and conceal funds, with promises of segregated accounts, fixed returns, and risk-free investments.
- Schemers claimed high guaranteed yields (roughly 10–12%), but funds were largely paid to earlier investors with new investor money.
- Beckman misrepresented credentials and used radio shows, seminars, and brochures to recruit investors; several letters and internal communications suggested noncompliance and potential illegality.
- The district court imposed lengthy sentences; appeals followed on evidentiary rulings, privilege issues, new-trial motions, and sentencing calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) admissibility of prior acts | Prosecution offered acts to show motive/intent | Evidence was prejudicial or not probative under 404(b) | Evidentiary rulings not abusive; admissible for proper purposes. |
| Hypothetical questions at trial | Questions did not mislead jury | Some questions assumed guilt | No plain error; no reversible impact. |
| Attorney-client privilege and crime-fraud exception | Privilege properly applied; communications admissible | Conflict and privilege issues warranted exclusion | Privilege properly resolved; crime-fraud exception applied as to Beckman. |
| Newly discovered evidence (Form 302) and Brady/Giglio/Jencks | Evidence could affect credibility and outcome | Non-disclosure prejudicial; possible exculpatory value | District court did not abuse; motions denied. |
| Sentencing – loss amount and enhancements | Loss amount supported by trial evidence; enhancements proper | Overbroad/or unwarranted extrapolations; disparities unwarranted | Sentences affirmed with guideline-rich rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Manning, 738 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings; standard applied)
- United States v. Yarrington, 634 F.3d 440 (8th Cir. 2011) (evidentiary and trial-issues review)
- United States v. Turner, 583 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2009) (Rule 404(b) balancing test; four-factor framework)
- United States v. Gant, 721 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2013) (probative value vs prejudice in Rule 404(b))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness review of sentences; 3553(a) factors)