The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Espinoza-Godinez, 106 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1997):
Espinoza-Godinez also had the opportunity to testify on his own behalf and cross-examine the government's witness about what was said in inaudible sections of the tapes. This case is therefore similar to United States v. Hearst, 412 F.Supp. 888 (N.D.Cal.1976). In Hearst, the district court correctly reasoned that a partially inaudible tape could properly be admitted because defense counsel had the opportunity to question the defendant about the tape and offer other relevant evidence, "thereby properly allowing the jury to assess the weight to be given to the tape." Id. at 889.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.