United States v. Oslund
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
453 F.3d 1048 (2006)
Following the murder and robbery of a Brinks security guard in front of a Target store, police set up a tip hotline, through which an attorney for Zachary Koehler, a friend of Richard Oslund (defendant), gave information to the FBI identifying Oslund as the perpetrator. The FBI obtained the assistance of Oslund’s close friend and former roommate, Thomas Russell who recorded hundreds of hours of conversations with Oslund over approximately seven months. These recordings contained both inculpatory and exculpatory statements. In a vehicle outfitted with audio and video by the FBI, Russell also drove Oslund to the scene of the crime where Oslund explained to Russell how the crime had happened. At the time of Oslund’s trial, Russell was incarcerated and did not testify. Instead, the tape recordings were introduced into evidence through the testimony of Agent Walden who testified that Russell would contact him before his meetings with Oslund, that he would give Russell a tape recorder that was set to record and could not be turned off by Russell. Agent Walden also identified both speakers, Russell and Oslund, in the recordings. Both the defense and the prosecution introduced portions of the recordings as evidence at Oslund’s trial. Oslund was convicted and appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On appeal, Oslund asserted that the tape recordings were inadmissible because they failed to meet the requirements for admissibility set out in United States v. McMillan, 508 F.2d 101 (8th Cir. 1974). Oslund presented three reasons the recordings did not comply with the McMillan factors: (1) Russell did not testify and Agent Walden’s testimony was inadequate to authenticate the recordings and identify the speakers; (2) there were gaps in the recording that required Russell’s testimony to explain whether these gaps indicated that the recordings were altered; and (3) Oslund was induced to speak to Russell and Russell was induced by the police’s offer of a reward to obtain incriminating statements from Oslund.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Hansen, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 170,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.