Opinion ID: 457774
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Authentication of Telephone Call

Text: 65 Appellants next argue that Critser's testimony concerning statements made to him by Bleisner during a telephone call initiated by Bleisner was inadmissible because this evidence was not properly authenticated under Fed.R.Evid. 901. Rule 901 imposes a requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility. This requirement is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed.R.Evid. 901(a). 66 Although self-identification by a caller does not provide sufficient evidence of identity under Rule 901, the Advisory Committee Notes make clear that additional evidence of ... identity may be introduced to furnish the requisite foundation. Advisory Committee Note to Rule 901(b)(6). The Notes state that the additional evidence need not fall in any set pattern (id.), and may include such evidence as contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances. Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(4). The Notes also indicate that a ... telephone conversation may be shown to have emanated from a particular person by virtue of its disclosing knowledge of facts known peculiarly to him. Advisory Committee Note to Rule 901(b)(4). 67 The fact that Critser received a call from James Leese, Jr. ten minutes later, during which Leese made reference to Bleisner's earlier call, provides sufficient authentication of Bleisner's identity to sustain the trial court's ruling. See United States v. Espinoza, 641 F.2d 153, 172 (4th Cir.) (identity of caller established by evidence that he made a reply or response in a manner expected to be evoked by an earlier communication made to him by the witness), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 841, 102 S.Ct. 153, 70 L.Ed.2d 125 (1981); United States v. John, 518 F.2d 705, 709-10 (7th Cir.1975) (context and timing of telephone call provided sufficient authenticating foundation for its admission); United States v. Lococo, 450 F.2d 1196, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.1971) (evidence of conduct by a defendant or by others so tied to the telephone calls may establish discernible pattern by which identity of caller is revealed), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 945, 92 S.Ct. 2040, 32 L.Ed.2d 331 (1972). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the government established an adequate foundation for Bleisner's identity as the caller.