That a person who hears another’s voice, either live or recorded, recognizes the person speaking is sufficient to authenticate the statement as having been made by that person.{footnote} [4293]  FRE 901(b)(5).{/footnote}  The witness’ level of certainty goes to the weight to be given the identification, not its admissibility.{footnote}Auerbach v. United States, 136 F.2d 882 (6th Cir. 1943).{/footnote}  Expert testimony has been held admissible as to the reliability of “earwitness” testimony.{footnote}United States v. Angleton, 269 F. Supp. 2d 868, 878 (S.D. Tex. 2003).
{/footnote} 

See also AUTHENTICATION–Oral Communications; SPECTOGRAPHIC VOICE ANALYSIS; TAPE-RECORDINGS; TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS.

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

The privilege of an accused not to incriminate himself is not violated by requiring him to speak for the purpose of a voice identification.{footnote}United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 87 S.Ct. 1926 (1967); Meggs v. Fair, 621 F.2d 460 (1st Cir. 1980).{/footnote}  It is also not violated when a recording of the defendant’s responses to questions is used to show slurring of speech and other evidence of lack of muscular coordination indicative of intoxication.{footnote}Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990).{/footnote} 
See also LINEUPS–Privilege Against Self-Incrimination; SELF-INCRIMINATION–Criminal Defendants: Physical Evidence.