Opinion ID: 761047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Foundation for the Tape Recording

Text: 8 Mr. Carta contends that the foundation laid by the government did not meet the requirements of Fed.R.Evid. 901 and, therefore, the tape recording should not have been admitted. He points to a number of claimed deficiencies in the foundation, particularly the inability of the government to fix the exact date when the recorded conversation occurred. 9 In reviewing the sufficiency of the foundation needed for admission of a recorded conversation, this court has specifically rejected the adoption of 'inflexible criteria applicable to all cases.'  United States v. Jones, 730 F.2d 593, 597 (10th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. Smith, 692 F.2d 693, 698 (10th Cir.1982)); see also United States v. Rodriguez-Garcia, 983 F.2d 1563, 1569 (10th Cir.1993). [W]e will not upset the judge's admission of a recording unless the foundation was clearly insufficient to insure the accuracy of the recording. Jones, 730 F.2d at 597 (citations omitted). Here we are convinced that the government's foundation was sufficient. 10 Dr. Pranckun testified that he recognized the first two voices on the tape as his and Mr. Carta's. 1 Dr. Pranckun testified initially that the conversation took place in the summer or fall of 1995, but on cross-examination, he stated that he had no idea when the conversation took place. However, Dr. Pranckun testified that in the conversation, he and Mr. Carta were discussing the problem that had arisen between them concerning the allegation that Dr. Pranckun was cooperating with the F.B.I. Dr. Pranckun testified that this problem had occurred in the summer of 1995. In addition, Dr. Pranckun testified that the conversation had taken place before he received the letter of apology from Mr. Carta near Christmas of 1995. By reference to the dispute between Mr. Carta and Dr. Pranckun and the receipt by Dr. Pranckun of the letter of apology, the government established a sufficient foundation as to the time when the recorded conversation occurred. 11 The tape recording was found in the search of a motor home in which Mr. Carta had been living; the defense stipulated to the chain of custody of the tape recording. Dr. Pranckun testified that he recalled that Mr. Carta told him that he was recording the conversation and, on the tape, Mr. Carta states that he is recording the conversation. 12 Given the above indicia of authenticity, it is clear that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the tape recording.