## Facts

- Federal agents investigated a large marijuana-importation scheme involving multiple defendants.
- Arthur John Loye was convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) for using a telephone to facilitate the importation offense.
- On August 5, 1978, DEA Agent Starratt received a call from a person who identified himself as “Chip,” a nickname associated with Loye.
- Starratt did not record the call, had never met Loye, and had no prior familiarity with Loye’s voice or any voice-comparison basis for identification.
- At trial, Starratt identified Loye as the caller solely because the caller said he was “Chip” and Loye was known by that nickname.
- Loye objected that the caller identification lacked authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 and was inadmissible; the district court admitted the testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether a telephone caller’s self-identification as “Chip,” combined only with evidence that the defendant used that nickname, is sufficient to authenticate the caller’s identity under Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
2. Whether admitting the agent’s identification testimony without corroborating circumstances required reversal of Loye’s § 843(b) conviction.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held the identification testimony was not properly authenticated under Rule 901 and was inadmissible.
- The court concluded self-identification, without corroborating circumstances linking the defendant to the call, does not satisfy the prima facie authentication requirement.
- Because the unauthenticated identification was central to the § 843(b) count, the evidentiary error was not harmless.
- Loye’s § 843(b) conviction was reversed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), the proponent must offer evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what it is claimed to be.
- For telephone conversations, a caller’s self-identification alone is insufficient to authenticate the speaker’s identity.
- Authentication of a telephone speaker may be established through independent indicia such as voice familiarity, recordings or comparisons, calls to a number associated with the person, surveillance tying the person to the call, or other corroborating circumstances.
- Once a prima facie showing of authenticity is made, the jury determines the weight; without that threshold showing, the evidence is inadmissible.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Loye’s conviction for using a telephone to facilitate a drug offense because the government failed to authenticate the caller’s identity under Rule 901 where the only basis for identification was the caller’s self-identification by a nickname.


United States v. Pool, 660 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1981)