Opinion ID: 599011
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Recorded Conversation

Text: 25 Before surveillance was established at Rodriguez' apartment, Rodriguez contacted Huaro by phone to initiate negotiations. Rodriguez placed three calls to the DEA undercover number which he had been given by Huaro. Agents West and Seitzinger were present with Huaro during the calls, at which time Agent West translated into English Huaro's portion of the conversations. Two calls were recorded and later transcribed and translated into English. 26 Rodriguez contends that these conversations constitute bad guy evidence, that the Government failed to provide an adequate chain of custody in that a tape recording may be subject to alteration or tampering, that the admission of the recording was not based on an adequate foundation, and that much of the tape was unintelligible. We review the trial court's admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Durtsche v. American Colloid Co., 958 F.2d 1007, 1011 (10th Cir.1992). 27 Where a party to a conversation consents to the interception of that conversation, such interception is lawful. See United States v. Davis, 780 F.2d 838, 846 (10th Cir.1985). Citing United States v. Currier, 836 F.2d 11 (1st Cir.1987), Rodriguez asserts that this recording constitutes bad guy (bad character) evidence. In Currier, admission of a recording was reviewed under Fed.R.Evid. 403 3 and 404(b). 4 There, the court considered whether the recording was probative for any purpose other than to show bad character. Undertaking a similar analysis, the trial court in the present case found the recording probative in that it corroborated Huaro's testimony and evidenced Rodriguez' knowledge and intent. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. 28 We have specifically rejected the adoption of 'inflexible [foundation] criteria applicable to all cases,' [and] will not upset the [trial] judge's admission of a recording unless the foundation was clearly insufficient to insure the accuracy of the recording. United States v. Jones, 730 F.2d 593, 597 (10th Cir.1984) (citing United States v. Smith, 692 F.2d 693, 698 (10th Cir.1982)). We are convinced that the government established a sufficient foundation in this case. Agent West testified that he was present when the conversations were recorded, that he simultaneously translated Huaro's portion of the discussion into English, and that he kept the recording in his possession until he was later involved in its transcription and translation. Under such circumstances, we hold that this evidence was properly admitted. See United States v. McIntyre, 836 F.2d 467, 470 (10th Cir.1987). 29 This court has indicated that when evidence is open to alteration or tampering, a more elaborate chain of custody is required. The standard required is a chain of custody 'with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.'  United States v. Clonts, 966 F.2d 1366, 1368-69 (10th Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Cardenas, 864 F.2d 1528, 1531 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 909, 109 S.Ct. 3197, 105 L.Ed.2d 705 (1989)). Given Agent West's testimony evidencing an appropriate chain of custody, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the recordings. 30 Although Rodriguez has not indicated in what manner the recording is unintelligible, this court has held that [u]nless the unintelligible portions are so substantial as to render untrustworthy the recordings as a whole, the tapes may be admitted. United States v. Mittleider, 835 F.2d 769, 773 (10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 980, 108 S.Ct. 1279, 99 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988). We hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting these recorded conversations.