Opinion ID: 455772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Voice Spectrogram

Text: 46 As part of his defense at trial, Lee introduced the testimony of a voice identification expert, Dr. Henry Truby. Dr. Truby testified concerning spectrographic voice analyses he made comparing the tape recording of the pilot's voice with Lee's voice. Lee now argues on appeal that the trial court impermissibly commented to the jury on the credibility of this witness. 47 A federal district court has long had the authority to comment on the evidence introduced at trial. See Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 53 S.Ct. 698, 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933). Such comments are permitted to assist the jury in arriving at a just conclusion. Anderson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 696 F.2d 296, 299 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1111, 103 S.Ct. 2463, 77 L.Ed.2d 1340 (1983). As a result, we have held that the judge's comments must be neutral and [are] not [to] be given so as to intimidate the witnesses or otherwise interfere with the ascertainment of truth. Id. at 299. A thorough review of this record has not uncovered any statements by the trial court which undermine his neutrality. 15 His charge to the jury concerning the voice spectrogram was fair if not totally neutral. 16 Therefore, the district court's comments regarding the voice spectrogram did not constitute reversible error.