United States v. Lundstrom
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
880 F.3d 423 (2018)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Gilbert Lundstrom (defendant) ran a bank that was shut down by federal regulators. Lundstrom was charged with crimes, including fraudulent concealment of the bank’s loan losses. At Lundstrom’s trial, the United States (plaintiff) introduced into evidence reports written by examiners from the federal Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). OTS examiners regularly supervise banks to make sure that they are complying with applicable laws and regulations, and the examiners’ reports were prepared as part of OTS’s regular work. The district court admitted the examiners’ reports into evidence under the business-records exception to the hearsay rule. Lundstrom was convicted of fraudulently concealing the bank’s losses, and he appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On appeal, Lundstrom challenged the district court’s decision to admit the examiners’ reports. Lundstrom asserted that under the public-records exception to the hearsay rule, a report containing factual findings from a legally authorized investigation is inadmissible when offered against a criminal defendant. Lundstrom claimed that because the reports were inadmissible as public records, the court should not have admitted them as business records.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wollman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
