In a criminal trial, the prosecutor called a witness to the stand to authenticate the voice in a tape recording as the defendant's. The only other time the witness has heard the defendant's voice was after his arrest. Assuming a proper foundation has been laid, may the witness properly authenticate the defendant's voice? (a) Yes, because the witness is now familiar with the defendant's voice. (b) Yes, because the prosecutor can qualify the witness as an expert on the defendant's voice. (c) No, because the witness's testimony would be inadmissible hearsay. (d) No, because the witness did not hear the defendant's voice until after he was arrested.

Question

Frank Delgado

Social Studies

1 September, 15:14

In a criminal trial, the prosecutor called a witness to the stand to authenticate the voice in a tape recording as the defendant's. The only other time the witness has heard the defendant's voice was after his arrest. Assuming a proper foundation has been laid, may the witness properly authenticate the defendant's voice? (a) Yes, because the witness is now familiar with the defendant's voice. (b) Yes, because the prosecutor can qualify the witness as an expert on the defendant's voice. (c) No, because the witness's testimony would be inadmissible hearsay. (d) No, because the witness did not hear the defendant's voice until after he was arrested.

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Nathaly Nguyen · Answer 1

The witness cannot say for certain that it is the defendant's voice because "the witness did not hear the defendant's voice until after he was arrested." And given the fact that he doesn't know him too well he might not recognize his voice also

Explanation:

Defendant:this is someone who is being sued in a court

Witness: this is someone that something happened in his/her presence