Opinion ID: 549496
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of the Tape Recording and Use of the Transcripts

Text: 16 Appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion by admitting two of the four conversations contained on government exhibit 3, the composite tape. The particular conversations in question are those which occurred outside the Chattanooga restaurant and in Ringgold, Georgia. Appellants contend that these recordings were of such poor quality that the court should not have admitted them in evidence. 17 The district court listened to the contested recordings and issued an order in which it found that with one notable exception, the tape recordings [were] audible enough to make sense to the listener and for a juror to determine whether or not the tape is at variance with the transcripts. Memorandum and Order of October 19, 1989; JA 49. The exception noted by the court was a portion of the Ringgold, Georgia conversation which was rendered inaudible by radio interference. The court excluded this portion of the recording. 18 Settled law in this circuit directs that the abuse of discretion standard guide appellate review of a district court's decision to admit tape recordings. See U.S. v. Scaife, 749 F.2d 338 (6th Cir.1984); U.S. v. Enright, 579 F.2d 980 (6th Cir.1978). Generally, tape recordings are admissible unless the incomprehensible portions of the tapes are so substantial as to render the recordings as a whole untrustworthy. U.S. v. Robinson, 763 F.2d 778, 781 (6th Cir.1985). 19 In the instant case, the government acknowledges that the recordings contain some inaudible portions, but it contends that this is an unavoidable consequence of extraneous interference and background noise common in undercover tape recordings. While we note that such commonplace interference might render a recording inadmissible in some instances--indeed the district court excluded a portion of the Ringgold conversation for this very reason 2 --we also observe that the district court heard testimony from several corroborative witnesses concerning the substance of the recorded discussions. 20 Our brethren in the tenth circuit have commented that the general rule of admissibility of tape recordings is particularly strong where a witness who heard the statements also testifies and the recording gives independent support to this testimony. U.S. v. Brinklow, 560 F.2d 1008, 1011 (10th Cir.1977). In the case before us, the district court heard testimony concerning the conversations in question from Lynwood Ridley, one of the participants to the conversations. Additionally, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent Kelly Goodowens testified that he was monitoring the transmitter worn by Ridley and was able to hear the conversations in question. Finally, TBI Special Agent Copeland also testified that he monitored the conversations and described them in his testimony. Thus, the tapes did not provide the sole evidence concerning the conversations, but merely supplemented the testimony of witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the discussions. 21 Although they contest neither the accuracy of, nor the foundation for the use of the transcripts, Appellants further contend that the district court erred by permitting the jury to utilize transcripts of the conversations while the tapes were being played. 22 This court has long recognized the widely held rule that [t]he use of transcripts is ... a matter commended to the trial court's discretion. U.S. v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 872, 876 (6th Cir.1983); see also U.S. v. Panas, 738 F.2d 278 (8th Cir.1984) (affirming use of transcript to assist jury in identifying speakers in conversations); U.S. v. Slade, 627 F.2d 293, 302 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1034 (1980) (It is within the trial court's discretion to allow the jury to use an accurate transcript to 'assist them in listening to [a] tape.' ... The need for a transcript tends to arise where, as here, portions of a tape were relatively inaudible and the identity of the speakers was not automatically clear to a listener.). 23 Here, the district court did not admit the transcripts into evidence and cautioned the jury to use them only as a guide. The district judge specifically admonished the jurors that if there is any difference between what you hear on the tapes and what you read on the transcripts, then you should be governed by what you hear on the tapes, and not by what you read in the transcript. Jury Trial, TR at 37 and 274. Thus presented with transcripts of uncontested accuracy, and giving the appropriate cautionary instruction, the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the jury to use the transcripts as a guide.