Opinion ID: 63
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allen's Preliminary Report

Text: Although Brown claims that he remained convinced that there were substantial irregularities on the tapes, so far as we are aware he did not make any further investigation into the circumstances leading to their preparation to determine whether his belief was correct until approximately one year later when in August 2003 he retained forensic expert Stuart Allen to examine the audio tapes of the March 13 and March 30 conversations. After conducting a digital examination of the tapes, Allen provided Brown with a Preliminary Forensic Examination Report, dated September 17, 2003, containing the following preliminary conclusions with respect to the tapes of both conversations: Preliminary digital findings indicate that the audiocassettes examined in our laboratory were copies made from a digital original and contain anomalies of unknown origin.... The preliminary forensic examination of this subject tape identified several anomalies of unknown origin, however the results are inconclusive, since the examination was performed on a copy as previously stated and not the original. The anomalies observed may have been the result of a faulty duplication process or some other unknown process yet to be identified. Therefore it is the professional opinion of this examiner that the original recording device and the original media associated with the subject recording, be produced and delivered for non-destructive forensic examination at this laboratory. App. at 1165, 1167, 1168 (emphasis in original). Shortly after receiving Allen's report and three days prior to the date that jury selection was set to begin in Brown's trial, one of his lawyers sent an email message to AUSA Daniel inquiring whether it would be possible for Allen to examine the original tapes of the March 13 and March 30 conversations at Allen's place of business. [7] AUSA Daniel responded the next business day, September 22, 2003, stating you gotta be kidding, and asking Brown's attorney to call him to discuss the request. App. at 1169. We are uncertain of AUSA Daniel's reason for taking that approach to Brown's request, though it may have reflected exasperation at the timing of the request.