Opinion ID: 772369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility and Authenticity of the Audio Tape Recording

Text: 8 In granting summary judgment, a 'court may consider any material that would be admissible or usable at trial,' including properly authenticated and admissible documents or exhibits. Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 988 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Aguilera v. Cook County Police & Corrs. Merit Bd., 760 F.2d 844, 849 (7th Cir. 1985) and citing Martz v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co., 757 F.2d 135, 138 (7th Cir. 1985)). Audio tape recordings are generally admissible as evidence whether in original or duplicate form. See United States v. Carrasco, 887 F.2d 794, 802 (7th Cir. 1989). However, a duplicate may be inadmissible if a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original . . . . Fed. R. Evid. 1003(1). In determining authenticity we follow Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), which requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 644 (7th Cir. 2000). Beyond these basic parameters, we have eschewed any formalistic approach to the admission of tape recordings or copies thereof. Stringel v. Methodist Hosp. of Indiana, Inc., 89 F.3d 415, 420 (7th Cir. 1996). 9 To authenticate a tape in a criminal case the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the tape is a true, accurate, and authentic recording of the conversation, at a given time, between the parties involved. See id. We have assumed, but not decided, that the proponent in a civil case for admission of a tape bears the same burden. See id. We decline to squarely decide the question again today, resting on the same assumption. Clear and convincing evidence of the truth, accuracy, and authenticity of a tape may be shown in two ways. The proponent may show the tape's chain of custody. See United States v. Brown, 136 F.3d 1176, 1181 (7th Cir. 1998). If no proof as to chain of custody is rendered, the tape may be admissible if a foundation as to the 'accuracy and trustworthiness of the evidence is laid.' Id. (quoting United States v. Craig, 573 F.2d 455, 478 (7th Cir. 1977)). In this circuit, the recollections of eyewitnesses to the events in question are sufficient to establish a foundation for the admission of tapes. Id. at 1182 (citations omitted). 10 Our second remand ordered the district court to admit the tape into the record and consider it in its decision. In so doing, the district court found that the tape was authentic and admissible because the proponents laid a proper foundation. They did so by submitting both Darlin's affidavit, which included eyewitness statements identifying his voice and siren, and Dugan's affidavit, which included chain of custody statements about how the tape was recorded and handled in the office. Thus, based on these attestations, the district court appropriately shifted the burden to Smith to show in authenticity, because once the foundation is laid by clear and convincing evidence, the opponent of admission has the burden to rebut. See United States v. Blakey, 607 F.2d 779, 787 (7th Cir. 1979). The district court properly found that Smith presented no evidence to dispute that the recording is what the defendants claim[ed] it to be. Smith's only rebuttal is that he did not hear the siren, therefore there may have been a problem with the fidelity of the siren system or the siren was not played. Smith's contentions are merely general, conclusory allegations based upon mere suspicions, which are not enough to rebut the proponent's foundation. Id. (quotation omitted). Stated another way, [m]erely raising the possibility (however hypothetical) of tampering is not sufficient to render evidence inadmissible. Brown, 136 F.3d at 1182 (citation omitted). Therefore, it was appropriate to admit the tape in determining summary judgment, and the district court correctly found that the tape was authentic and admissible. Smith raises an assortment of other arguments regarding the authenticity and admissibility of the tape, however, we decline to address them for they are without merit.