Opinion ID: 513461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Foundation for Admission

Text: 7 Appellant Gustavo Holguin, joined by Leovigilda Rivera (who adopts the arguments presented by Mr. Holguin), contends that the government failed to lay a proper foundation to identify the appellants as those whose voices were recorded. He specifically contends that the manner of the recording--telephone to reel-to-reel tape to cassette--was insufficiently accurate to identify the speakers. He then submits, essentially, that the government's voice identification witnesses failed to authenticate the recorded conversations as being between the defendants. For instance, he contends that the witnesses (1) did not testify as to what specific tapes ... they listened to when they identified the voices in question, Holguin's Br. at 79; (2) did not testify as to when, where, how or who else was present when they heard what ever [sic] tapes they heard, id.; and (3) did not listen to tapes in open court for identification before the jury. 8 In contrast, concerning the accuracy of the recordings, the government contends that there was ample evidence to establish that every piece of equipment involved in the production of the tapes worked properly in producing an accurate recording of the appellants' voices. As to the authenticity of the recordings, the government contends that the issue was never raised before the district court and, therefore, that the argument is waived on appeal. On the merits, the government argues that its witnesses had sufficient familiarity with Mr. Holguin's and Ms. Rivera's voices to identify them as speakers on the tapes.
9 Upon reviewing the record, we believe that Mr. Holguin preserved, albeit marginally, all these issues. Accordingly, we address their merits. 10 We previously have held that [t]ape recordings are only admissible if the Government can establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the recordings are 'true, accurate, and authentic recording[s] of the conversation[s], at given time[s], between the parties involved.'  United States v. Keck, 773 F.2d 759, 766 (7th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. Faurote, 749 F.2d 40, 43 (7th Cir.1984)). The district court must determine whether the recordings involved conversations that occurred between defendants in this suit. Id. 11 Here, the district court determined that the government had met its burden and admitted the voice recordings and transcripts into evidence. It is well established that a district court's general evidentiary rulings will be reversed only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Garner, 837 F.2d 1404, 1416 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2022, 100 L.Ed.2d 608 (1988); Davis v. Lane, 814 F.2d 397, 399 (7th Cir.1987); accord Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 847 F.2d 1261, 1266 (7th Cir.1988). This standard also governs our review of a district court's decision to admit voice recordings. Faurote, 749 F.2d at 43; see United States v. Hughes, 658 F.2d 317, 322 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1280, 71 L.Ed.2d 463 (1982); United States v. Blakey, 607 F.2d 779, 787 (7th Cir.1979). 12
13 The government presented clear and convincing evidence to show that the conversations were recorded truly and accurately. First, it demonstrated that the lines used in the wiretapping of Rudy's Service Station and the South Whipple Street apartment were voice quality lines. Ronald Kwasny, a security manager for Illinois Bell Telephone Company (Illinois Bell), testified that a voice quality line is of the same quality as a residence or business telephone line. Mr. Kwasny testified that Illinois Bell makes it a routine practice to test such a line to ensure that it meets its design or engineering standard before giving it to the DEA or FBI. Tr. vol. 9 at 1644. Second, the government demonstrated that it is the routine practice of both agencies to test the equipment involved in a wiretap prior to its use. Third, agents listened to the conversations while they were being recorded; they reported no malfunctions in the equipment. 4 Fourth, agents who listened to each stage of the recording process testified that the cassettes--from which the transcripts were made 5 --accurately reproduced the voices on the original reel-to-reel recordings of the telephone conversations. 6 And fifth, witnesses who knew either Mr. Holguin or Ms. Rivera testified that the taped voices were an accurate representation of the appellants' own voices. 7 14 In contrast, the only evidence introduced by the appellants that contradicts these submissions was the testimony of a former Illinois Bell employee, Stanley Salter. Mr. Salter testified that a human voice has much greater range than the capability of telephone equipment to capture and reproduce the voice. However, he also testified on cross-examination that telephone equipment essentially can transmit the fundamental frequency of a human voice. In addition, he opined that, although some conversations contained distortion due to poor recording techniques, he heard no noise that would be caused by, [malfunction of] 'Telephon[ic equipment.]'  Tr. vol. 29 at 5404. 15
16 Concerning the authenticity of the speakers' voices on the tapes, both Mr. Castrellon and Mr. Alvarez stipulated that Government Exhibits Rudy's 1 through 110 correctly identified the speakers in those conversations, including the defendants where the names appear as a speaker.... Tr. vol. 9 at 1602. A similar stipulation applies concerning the Whipple tapes. In addition, both Mr. Holguin and Ms. Rivera stipulated to the correctness of all voices but their own. 17 Moreover, we find abundant evidence in the record to refute squarely the contentions raised by Mr. Holguin. Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides guidelines for authenticating voices as a precondition for admissibility of evidence. The rule provides in relevant part: 18 (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: 19 .... 20 (5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker. 21 Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(5). As the advisory committee notes further clarify, [s]ince aural voice identification is not a subject of expert testimony, the requisite familiarity may be acquired either before or after the particular speaking which is the subject of the identification.... Fed.R.Evid. 901 advisory committee's notes (emphasis supplied). Courts interpreting this Rule have accepted its plain meaning. See, e.g., United States v. Cerone, 830 F.2d 938, 949 (8th Cir.1987) (Any person may identify a speaker's voice if he has heard the voice at any time.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1730, 100 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988); United States v. Gironda, 758 F.2d 1201, 1218 (7th Cir.) (witness was familiar with voice of defendant based on at least three conversations prior to telephone call at issue), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1004, 106 S.Ct. 523, 88 L.Ed.2d 456 (1985); United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603, 640 (2d Cir.1979) (witness properly identified defendant based on listening to voice exemplar), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 940, 100 S.Ct. 2163, 64 L.Ed.2d 795 (1980); United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1335 (10th Cir.) (witness may identify defendant based on conversations held either before or after the particular speaking which is the subject of the identification), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840, 100 S.Ct. 78, 62 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979). 22 Here, the government introduced testimony from three witnesses: FBI Agent John Edward Hernandez; Jose Buergo, an assistant professor of Spanish at the University of Illinois; and Gladys Wilson, a former romantic interest of Mr. Holguin. Concerning Mr. Holguin, Agent Hernandez testified that he conversed with the appellant in Spanish for approximately four to five hours, tr. vol. 9 at 1674-75, and that he heard Mr. Holguin testify at a pretrial hearing for an additional forty-five minutes. Agent Hernandez also testified that he listened to the tape recordings [i]n excess of five [hundred] to 600 hours. Id. at 1670. Based on this foundation, he then expressed his opinion that the transcripts correctly identified Gustavo DeJesus Holguin. Id. at 1676. Moreover, Gladys Wilson testified that, based on numerous in-person and telephone conversations with Mr. Holguin, his voice is one that I will never forget. Tr. vol. 24 at 4315. She indicated that when she listened to several of the tape recordings at issue, she recognized Mr. Holguin's voice. She then informed an FBI agent of her identification and he initialed those tapes. 23 As to Ms. Rivera, both Agent Hernandez and Professor Buergo conversed with her and, at that time, obtained a recorded voice exemplar of her speech. They then compared their conversations and the exemplar with the voices on the cassettes. Like Agent Hernandez, Professor Buergo spent considerable time reviewing the tapes--[a]pproximately 300 hours. Tr. vol. 10 at 1840. At trial, both of these witnesses testified that Ms. Rivera properly was identified on the transcripts of the tape recordings. 24 Although only a [m]inimal familiarity is sufficient for admissibility purposes, Cerone, 830 F.2d at 949, the government witnesses had considerable opportunity to become acquainted with the voices of the appellants. Attacks on the accuracy of the identification go to the weight of the evidence, and the issue is for the jury to decide. Id.; see United States v. Smith, 635 F.2d 716, 719 (8th Cir.1980). Accordingly, the district court properly admitted the tapes and the transcripts into evidence.