The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2006 Recordings, Transcripts and Translations as Evidence Clifford S. Fishman The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Clifford S. Fishman, Recordings, Transcripts and Translations as Evidence, 81 WASH. L. REV. 473 (2006). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright © 2006 by Washington Law Review Association RECORDINGS, TRANSCRIPTS, AND TRANSLATIONS AS EVIDENCE By Clifford S. Fishman* Abstract: Secretly recorded conversations often play a vital role in criminal trials. However, circumstances such as background noise, accidents, regional or national idioms, jargon, or code may make it difficult for a jury to hear or understand what was said--even if all participants were speaking English. Thus, a recording's value as evidence will often depend on whether an accurate transcript may be distributed to the jury. This Article discusses several legal issues, including: Who should prepare a transcript? What should it contain? How should its accuracy be determined, and by whom? Should the transcript be considered evidence, or only an "aid to understanding" the recording? Should expert testimony be admitted to interpret jargon and codes? When the conversation was in another language, additional issues arise: Who should translate the conversation into English? What methodology should the translator use? How should a court determine the accuracy of the translation? How should the conversation be presented to the jury? How can the adverse party challenge the accuracy of the translation before and during the trial? By blending existing case law, general evidentiary principles, common sense and his own experience as a prosecutor, the author offers answers to each of these questions. Professor of Law, The Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America. B.A. University of Rochester, 1966; J.D. Columbia Law School, 1969. From 1969 to 1977, Professor Fishman served as an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office and as Chief Investigating Assistant District Attorney in New York City's Special Narcotics Prosecutor's Office, where, among other things, he tried dozens of jury trials; wrote and supervised the execution of dozens of court-authorized wiretap and eavesdrop orders; wrote search warrants leading to the seizure of untold quantities of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, as well as a two hundred pound bag of peat moss; oversaw the purchase of the most expensive pound of pancake mix in the history of American law enforcement; and became well acquainted with the agonies and ecstasies of recordings, transcriptions and translations. Since joining the law faculty at Catholic University, he has taken occasional court assignments to represent indigent defendants, in which capacity he complains loud and long about prosecutorial tactics which he himself employed with great delight against defense attorneys when the shoe was on the other foot. I extend my thanks to Justin Heminger, J.D. Catholic University of America 2006, for his assistance in preparing the final manuscript. I am grateful to the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, and to Ann G. McFarlane, its executive director; and to the Joint Language Training Center, at Camp Williams State Military Reserve, Utah, and to LTC Derek Tolman, its commanding officer, for inviting me to speak on this subject to their organizations; in the process, I learned a great deal about the real-life problems and challenges of translating recorded conversations. Thanks, too, go to Sergei Chemov, Deputy Chief Interpreter, Technology and General Services Department, International Monetary Fund, and to Marat Umerov, also an interpreter with IMF, for their thoughtful comments about this article. Washington Law Review Vol. 81:473, 2006 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 475 I. RECORDINGS AND TRANSCRIPTS: BASIC PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................... 4 7 7 A . R ecordings ......................................................................... 477 1. Authentication ................................................................ 478 2. Audibility and Intelligibility ........................................... 482 B . T ranscripts .......................................................................... 484 1. Transcribing and Authenticating the Transcript ............. 484 2. The Transcript's Role ..................................................... 487 3. "Best Evidence Rule". .................................................... 491 4. Transcript Contents ......................................................... 492 a. Identifying the Speakers ............................................. 493 b. Prohibition Against Aural Editorializing .................... 494 5. Testing Transcript Accuracy .......................................... 496 6. Expert Testimony Interpreting Conversations ................ 498 C. Jury Access to Tapes and Transcripts During Deliberations ................................................................................................ 5 0 0 II. FOREIGN LANGUAGE CONVERSATIONS ..................... 501 A. Complications Unique to Foreign Language Conversations ................................................................................................ 5 0 1 B. Translation of Foreign Language Conversation as Expert O pinion Evidence ................................................................... 503 1. The Translator ................................................................. 503 2. Methods and Procedures ................................................. 506 C. Adverse Party's Challenge to Transcript Accuracy ........... 508 D. Assessing Accuracy: Roles of Judge and Jury .................. 511 E. Contents of Translations to be Presented to the Jury ......... 513 F. Presenting Conversations and Translations to the Jury ...... 516 1. Should the Recording be Played for the Jury? ............... 516 2. The Alternatives ............................................................. 520 3. Jury Access to Translations During Deliberations ......... 521 4. Court Reporter Act; Jones Act ........................................ 521 G . Jury Instructions ................................................................. 522 C O N CLU SIO N .......................................................................... 523 Recordings, Transcripts, Translations INTRODUCTION Surreptitiously recorded conversations have long played a prominent role in American trials.' Few, if any, forms of evidence are likely to be as probative-or as devastating. We see this most often in criminal cases: rather than rely on the testimony of witnesses who may be vulnerable to various forms of impeachment, a prosecutor simply allows a defendant's words to speak for themselves.2 It is quite difficult for a defense attorney to "impeach" a recording of criminals planning or reminiscing about their crimes. The3 impact of such evidence can be equally dramatic in civil litigation. Assuming the conversation was recorded lawfully,4 the use of the 1. The first U.S. Supreme Court decision to discuss the admissibility of a secretly recorded conversation was Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963), but such recordings had been offered in state and federal trials for a considerable time before that. See Thompson v. State, 298 P.2d 464, 466-67 (Okla. Crim. App. 1956) (reviewing state and federal cases in which secretly recorded conversations were admissible at trial). 2. In the overwhelming majority of cases involving recordings, transcripts, and translations, a prosecutor is the offering party. The issues discussed in this Article are equally applicable, however, when such evidence is offered by a criminal defendant or civil litigant. 3. Use of recorded conversations by civil litigants arises in a variety of contexts, but the most frequent probably occurs in child custody actions. In the typical case, the custodial parent surreptitiously records the child's telephone conversations with the other parent, an action which most courts consider lawful only if the custodial parent can establish that he or she did so, not to gather dirt against the other parent, but because of a good-faith concern about the child's welfare. See, for example, Cacciarelli v. Boniface, 737 A.2d 1170, 1174-76 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1999), in which a father, the custodial parent, surreptitiously taped his three young children's phone conversations with their mother because they regularly became upset and cried and misbehaved after speaking to her. The court held that the tapes, which recorded the mother falsely telling the children that their father would put her in jail, force her to sell her house, and give away their dog, were admissible at a hearing on the mother's motion to alter the custody arrangements. (The opinion does not indicate the ultimate outcome of the custody battle.) But