Opinion ID: 1034078
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Audio Recordings

Text: Defendants contend that the district court erred in admitting audio recordings of conversations between Wanda and Kennon White and defendants. In particular, defendants argue that the recordings were inadmissible because they were “replete with inaudible portions, barely intelligible portions, and unidentified speakers.” Jones Br. at 21. “The admission at trial of tape recordings rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” United States v. Wilkinson, 53 F.3d 757, 761 (6th Cir. 1995). “That discretion presumes, as a prerequisite to admission, that the tapes be authentic, accurate 28 The better practice, as the government points out, would have been conditionally to admit the evidence at that time or to wait until the government has proffered evidence to make the connection and admit the evidence then. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988). Neither happened in the present case, however, so we have no reason to consider what might have occurred in assessing whether the district court erred. Nos. 11-5291/ 5308/ 5311/ 5312/ 5313/ United States v. Adams et al. Page 41 5336/ 5337/ 5366 and trustworthy.” United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 872, 876 (6th Cir. 1983). Recordings are not admissible “if the unintelligible portions are so substantial as to render the recording as a whole untrustworthy.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). On appeal, defendants do not challenge the authenticity, accuracy, or trustworthiness of the recordings. Instead, they claim that the unintelligible portions of the recordings rendered the entire recordings untrustworthy and, consequently, inadmissible. Having listened to the recordings, we agree with defendants that the recordings contain portions that are unintelligible. See United States v. Scarborough, 43 F.3d 1021, 1024 (6th Cir. 1994) (reviewing recorded tapes on appeal). We cannot say, however, that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the audio recordings because the unintelligible portions do not “render the recording as a whole untrustworthy.” Robinson, 707 F.2d at 876.