Opinion ID: 2190138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Enhanced Tape Recording

Text: Appellant's final contention is that the trial judge erred in admitting a copy of the microcassette recorded by undercover officer Jacobs at one of his meetings with appellant which had been enhanced by the FBI in order to make the recorded conversation more audible. He contends that in the absence of expert testimony concerning the enhancement process, the government failed to lay a proper foundation. Admission of tape recordings is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Springer, supra, 388 A.2d at 852. The trial judge must determine whether the government has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the tapes are authentic, accurate, trustworthy and audible. Id. The fact of some inaudibility does not require exclusion. Id. As to enhanced tapes specifically, in Fountain v. United States, 384 F.2d 624, 631 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1005, 88 S.Ct. 1246, 20 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968), the trial judge found, where the person who processed the tapes testified at trial, that a copy of a tape which had been run through a noise suppression device accurately reflected the conversations on the original tape. 384 F.2d 629 & n. 4, 630. On review, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the existence of significant background noise, plus the availability of a reliable method of removing it, justified admission and use of the copy. Id. at 631; see also United States v. Madda, 345 F.2d 400, 403 (7th Cir.1965). Officer Jacobs explained that the original tape he made during his conversation with appellant was sent to the FBI to be re-recorded so that the sound of the conversation [could be] increased. He testified that he had heard the enhanced tape, and that it was a duplicate of the original. Jacobs did not testify how he determined that the tapes were exact duplicates. Both tapes were admitted into evidence, but only the enhanced tape was played for the jury. We follow the lead of Fountain, supra, and hold that upon remand the trial judge must determine whether the enhanced tape accurately reflects the original before admitting the enhanced tape into evidence. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded. TERRY, Associate Judge, concurring: I remain unrepentant in the view that the Boone and Robinson cases [1] were wrongly decided. [2] I recognize, however, that they are binding authority under M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310 (D.C.1971). Given that premise, I concur in part I of Judge Rogers' opinion for the court. I join without reservation in the remainder of Judge Rogers' opinion.