Opinion ID: 3040837
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Oslund challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. 'We review de novo the question of whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction.' United States v. Skinner, 433 F.3d 613, 615 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Vazquez-Garcia, 340 F.3d 632, 636 (8th Cir. 2003)). Only if 'no interpretation of the evidence . . . would allow a reasonable-minded jury to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt' will we reverse a jury's verdict on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Id. (quoting United States v. Morton, 412 F.3d 901, 904 (8th Cir. 2005)) (some internal marks omitted). Oslund specifically attacks the reliability of the two eyewitnesses who identified him and testified at trial. The use of eyewitness identification testimony often raises issues concerning the reliability of the claimed identification. See United States v. Martin, 391 F.3d 949, 954 (8th Cir. 2004). However, this court has stated that [t]he evaluation of eyewitness testimony is for the jury alone. United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870, 884 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1141; 520 U.S. 1220 (1997). If there are inconsistencies in a witness's testimony, problems with the 5 The complained of statement occurred during the Government's rebuttal closing argument. Referring to statements made by defense counsel during his closing argument, government counsel made the statement, He is misleading you, and he himself is throwing smoke (Trial Tr. at 1322). The defense had alluded to the fact that Agent Walden had jumped to conclusions and ignored parts of the investigation because he was so focused on Oslund. In response, the Government countered the argument that investigators had rushed to judgment with a summary of the testimony in the case and about the investigation, concluding with the disputed statement. -15- identification, a prolonged length of time that would raise concerns, or other similar issues, the defense has the opportunity to raise those concerns at trial and bring them out on cross-examination. Id. The jury then can decide how much weight and credibility to give such identifications. At Oslund's trial, the jury was instructed by the district court on factors to consider when weighing eyewitness identification, and the defense had ample opportunity to raise and argue the issue of its reliability to the jury. It was then up to the jury to determine the weight to give to the identifications, and we will not second-guess their determination in this matter. However, even if the eyewitness identification evidence were excluded, we would find that there was sufficient inculpatory evidence from which a jury could reasonably find Oslund guilty. The other evidence included the taped conversations between Oslund and Russell, taped conversations between Koehler and Oslund, testimony from several of Oslund's associates regarding confessional statements made by him, testimony that Oslund had more cash than usual around the time of the crime, and testimony that Oslund had been seen with a gun similar to that used in the crime around the time it occurred. In light of this and all the other evidence in the record, we conclude that Oslund's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit.