Whether to admit tape recordings into evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court, and that decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.{footnote}United States v. O’Connell, 841 F.2d 1408, 1422 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. King, 587 F.2d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 1978).{/footnote} 
Foundation

In the important McMillan case,{footnote}United States v. McMillan, 508 F.2d 101, 104 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 916, 95 S.Ct. 1577, 43 L.Ed.2d 782 (1975).{/footnote} the Eighth Circuit established a seven-step foundation requirement for government tape-recordings,{footnote}Accord United States v. McKeever, 169 F. Supp. 426 (S.D.N.Y. 1958), rev’d on other grounds, 271 F.2d 669 (2d Cir. 1959).

State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255, 183 A.2d 655 (___)

See also United States v. Hodge, 544 F.2d 1163, 1167 (7th Cir. 1979)(citing McMillan).

{/footnote} a requirement that has been extended to privately-made recordings:{footnote}United States v. O’Connell, 841 F.2d 1408, 1422 (8th Cir. 1988).{/footnote}

(1) the recording device was capable of recording the conversation;{footnote}See also McAlinney v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., 992 F.2d 839 (8th Cir. 1993)(mostly garbled and unintelligible microcassette recording of conversation excluded).

 But see United States v. Franklin, 747 F.2d 497, 498 (8th Cir. 1984)(per curiam)(fact that recording of conversation exists establishes that device capable of recording conversation).{/footnote}

(2) the device was operated by a competent operator;{footnote}But see United States v. Franklin, 747 F.2d 497, 498 (8th Cir. 1984)(per curiam)(fact that recording of successfully made establishes operator’s competency).{/footnote}

(3) the recording is authentic and accurate;

(4) no alterations, additions or deletions have been made;{footnote}See also McAlinney v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., 992 F.2d 839 (8th Cir. 1993)(microcassette recording of conversation excluded in part due to editting and blank portions).
{/footnote}

(5) the recording has been properly preserved;{footnote}See also United States v. Hodge, 544 F.2d 1163, 1167 (7th Cir. 1979)(tapes sealed in evidence bags until trial admissible).{/footnote}

(6) the speakers are identified; and

(7) the conversation recorded was voluntary and engaged in without             inducement.{footnote}See also McAlinney v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., 992 F.2d 839 (8th Cir. 1993)(surreptitious microcassette recording of conversation between employee, supervisor and others excluded).

Contra United States v. Anderton, 679 F.2d 1199, 1202 (5th Cir. 1982)(no proof required that conversation voluntary and without inducement). {/footnote}

 In the District of Columbia Circuit, the McMillan test has been rejected, and there are only four elements to the foundation:

(1) the competence of the operator;

(2) the fidelity of the recording device;

(3) the absence of material alterations, additions or deletions; and;
(4) the identity of relevant speakers.{footnote}United States v. Anderton, 679 F.2d 1199, 1202 (5th Cir. 1982).{/footnote}

The Ninth Circuit has refused to set any rigid foundation requirements.{footnote}United States v. Mouton, 617 F.2d 1379, 1383 (9th Cir. 1980)(seven-part test applied in McMillan held useful, but not dispositive; ultimate test is whether recording is "accurate, authentic, and generally trustworthy").{/footnote}

A recording will not be rendered inadmissible simply because portions are inaudible, unless the inaudible portions are so extensive that the recording is untrustworthy as a whole.{footnote}Gorin v. United States, 313 F.2d 641 (1st Cir. 1963); United States v. Bryant, 480 F.2d 785 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Schanerman, 150 F.2d 941 (3d Cir. 1945); United States v. Hall, 342 F.2d 849 (4th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 812, 86 S.Ct. 28, 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (by implication); United States v. Avila, 443 F.2d 792 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 944, 92 S.Ct. 295, 30 L.Ed.2d 258; United States v. Madda, 345 F.2d 400 (7th Cir. 1965); McAlinney v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., 992 F.2d 839 (8th Cir. 1993)(mostly garbled and unintelligible microcassette recording of conversation excluded); United States v. Lane, 514 F.2d 22 (9th Cir. ____); United States v. Slade, 627 F.2d 293, 301 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Monroe v. United States, 234 F.2d 49, 98 App. D.C. 228 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

People v. Ketchel, 59 Cal.2d 503, 30 Cal. Rptr. 538, 381 P.2d 394 (1963); Gomien v. State, 172 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1965); State v. Dye, 60 N.J. 518, 291 A.2d 825 (1972); People v. Gucciardo, 77 Misc.2d 1049, 355 N.Y.S.2d 300.

Annot., 57 ALR3d 746.

Check United States v. Skillman, 442 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1971).{/footnote};
When is the "Original" Required?

The best evidence rule, which provides that the content of a writing must be proven through the original unless it is unavailable, has been extended to recordings.{footnote}FRE 1002, 1004.{/footnote}  An original will be required whenever a recording is offered as having independent probative value.

Transcripts

Transcripts of taped conversations may be provided to the jury where they are shown to be accurate through a witness or the court’s own review.{footnote}United States v. John, 508 F.2d 1134, 1141 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Slade, 627 F.2d 293, 302 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

See United States v. West, No. 91-5097 (6th Cir. 11/15/91) 1991 WL 236229.{/footnote}  The person who transcribed the recording need not testify if someone who heard the tape or partipated in the recorded conversation testifies to the transcript’s accuracy.{footnote}United States v. Rochan, 563 F.2d 1246, 1252 (5th Cir. 1977).{/footnote}  The court is not required to verify the transcript’s accuracy,{footnote}United States v. Collazo, 732 F.2d 1200 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 777 (1985).{/footnote} however this has been recommended where accuracy is disputed.{footnote}United States v. Devous, 764 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1985).{/footnote}  Other alternatives are for both sides to stipulate to a transcript, or to each submit their own transcripts and allow both to be used.{footnote}United States v. Slade, 627 F.2d 293, 301 (D.C. Cir. 1980).{/footnote} 

It has been held, however, that transcripts are inadmissible hearsay where the court reporter who transcribed the recording was not present when the recording was made.{footnote}Duggan v. State, 189 So.2d 890 (Fla. App. 1966); Bonicellie v. State, 339 P.2d 1063 (Okla. Crim. 1959).{/footnote}

Whether transcripts are to be provided to the jury is left to the trial court’s discretion.{footnote}United States v. Carson, 464 F.2d 424, 437 (2d CIr. 1972); United States v. Hall, 342 F.2d 849, 853 (4th Cir. 1965); Fountain v. United States, 384 F.2d 624, 632 (5th Cir. 1967); United States v. John, 508 F.2d 1134, 1141 (8th Cir. 1975).{/footnote}

Recordings in a Foreign Language

Playing of the Tape.  The playing of tapes of conversations in a foreign language in court is not an absolute right.{footnote}United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d 1189, 1194 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 254 (1992).{/footnote}  Where a party fails to request that the tape be played, he cannot appeal the fact that the tape was not played for the jury.{footnote}United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d 1189, 1194 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 254 (1992).{/footnote}  Where a request is made, the decision whether to allow the playing of the tape is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.{footnote}United States v. Font-Ramirez, 944 F.2d 42, 47 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 954 (1992); United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d 1189, 1194 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 254 (1992); United States v. Llinas, 603 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1079 (1980);
{/footnote}  Tapes may be excluded as potentially confusing or misleading.{footnote}FRE 403; United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d 1189, 1194-95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 254 (1992).{/footnote}

Translated Transcripts.  Some courts hold that translated transcripts are admissible as substantive evidence,{footnote}United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d 1189, 1194 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 254 (1992);  United States v. Cruz, 765 F.2d 1020, 1023 (11th Cir. 1985).

See also United States v. Bahadar, 954 F.2d 821 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 149 (1992)(trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing transcripts to be read and brought into jury room).

Contra United States v. Font-Ramirez, 944 F.2d 42, 47 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 954 (1992)(tape recording and not transcript is the evidence in the case).
{/footnote} even where the tape itself is not admitted.{footnote} [4043]  United States v. Rengifo, 789 F.2d 975, 983 (1st Cir. 1986)(no objection to admission of transcript without tapes); United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d 1189, 1194 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 254 (1992).

{/footnote}  The proponent must establish the accuracy of the translation either through the testimony of the interpreter{footnote}United States v. Llinas, 603 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1079 (1980)(transcript excluded where interpreter not called to authenticate translation).{/footnote} or another qualified witness.{footnote}United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181, 1201 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 949 (1982).{/footnote}  In case of a discrepancy between the transcript and the tape recording, the tape recording controls.{footnote}United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d 1189, 1195 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 254 (1992); United States v. Camargo, 908 F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1990).{/footnote}  Any objection to a translation must be made at trial or it is deemed waived.{footnote}United States v. Font-Ramirez, 944 F.2d 42, 47 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 954 (1992); United States v. Zambrana, 864 F.2d 494, 498 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 1335 (7th Cir. 1988).

See also United States v. Rizk, 842 F.2d 111, 112 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832 (1988)(no plain error where defendant failed to object to translator’s comments added to translation).{/footnote}  An objection to a translation must generally be accompanied by the objecting party’s own translation, or at least point out specifically the error complained of.{footnote}United States v. Font-Ramirez, 944 F.2d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 954 (1992); United States v. Armendariz-Mata, 949 F.2d 151, 156 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 2288 (1992); United States v. Llinas, 603 F.2d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1079 (1980); United States v. Zambrana, 864 F.2d 494, 497 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 1336 (7th Cir. 1988).

 {/footnote}  Inaccuracies do not render a translation inadmissible so long as the translation is sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the jury.{footnote}United States v. Zambrana, 864 F.2d 494, 498 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Vega, 860 F.2d 779, 791 (7th Cir. 1988), abrogated on other grounds, sub nom. United States v. Durrive, 902 F.2d 1221 (1990); United States v. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 1337 (7th Cir. 1988).
{/footnote}  Any differences between two offered translations are for the jury to consider and decide upon.{footnote} [4050]  United States v. Llinas, 603 F.2d 506, 510 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1079 (1980); United States v. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 1337 (7th Cir. 1988).
{/footnote}

Stipulated Transcript.  Courts prefer having all parties endeavor to stipulate to a tranlated transcript of a recording in a foreign language.{footnote}See, e.g., United States v. Rengifo, 789 F.2d 975, 983 (1st Cir. 1986); United States v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 1491 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 863 (1990); United States v. Zambrana, 864 F.2d 494, 498 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Llinas, 603 F.2d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1079 (1980).{/footnote}  Even bilingual jurors must accept the accuracy of a transcript which has been stipulated to as accurate by both parties.{footnote}United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d 1189, 1195 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 254 (1992); United States v. Camargo, 908 F.2d 179, 183 (7th Cir. 1990).

CHECK But see United States v. Rengifo, 789 F.2d 975, 983 (1st Cir. 1986).{/footnote}

The Confrontation Clause

Although tape recordings do not permit cross-examination of unavailable declarants, the fact that they put the jury in a good position to judge the mental state of the declarant "mitigate[s] the dangers involved in admitting the statements."{footnote}United States v. Layton, 720 F.2d 548, 562-63 (9th Cir. 1983).{/footnote}

Undue Prejudice

Tape recordings may be excluded where their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.{footnote}McAlinney v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., 992 F.2d 839 (8th Cir. 1993)(surreptitious microcassette recording of conversation between employee, supervisor and others excluded).{/footnote}

Bibliography

29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence 436; 17 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts 1, Tape Recordings as Evidence.

Beth G. Lindie, Note, Inadequate Interpreting Services in Courts and the Rules of Admissibility of Testimony on Extrajudicial Interpretations, 48 U. Miami L. Rev. 399, 418-420 (1993).

Related Articles

COCKPIT RECORDINGS; RELATED EVIDENCE; TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS; VOICE IDENTIFICATION.