Opinion ID: 379997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tape-Recorded Evidence.

Text: 29 As previously noted, a substantial portion of the government's evidence against Weisman consisted of tape-recorded conversations obtained through court-ordered electronic surveillance and the body recorder worn by government informant Brodsky. At trial, Weisman requested the district court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 106, to compel the government to play in their entirety tapes, portions of which the government intended to use. Weisman also sought to admit into evidence, pursuant to Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5), tape recordings that the government did not intend to use at trial. 30 The district judge denied both requests. He concluded that Rule 106 did not require the government to play tapes in their entirety if the omitted portions were not necessary to clarify, or make not misleading, that which is introduced. 8 Subsequently, the district court ruled on numerous specific applications under Rule 106, granting some and denying some. Judge Sweet also concluded that those tapes not played by the government should not be admitted under Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5), the residual exceptions to the hearsay rule. 9 The court reasoned that the recordings failed to satisfy the requirements of the Rules, since the recordings did not embody the necessary circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and were not more probative than other evidence that could be procured by Weisman, including his own testimony. We find the district court's ruling on both evidentiary issues to be well within the discretion necessarily exercised by a trial judge, and see no reason to elaborate further on the analysis set forth in the judge's memorandum opinion, dated November 21, 1978.