## Facts

- Defendants John W. Sliker, John Carbone, and Theodore Buchwald participated in a scheme using checks purportedly drawn on the “Bahrain Credit Bank” of Montserrat, a fictitious bank used to facilitate fraudulent withdrawals before the checks were discovered to be worthless.
- In late 1980, Buchwald and an unindicted co-conspirator traveled to Brussels and unsuccessfully attempted to use these checks to purchase diamonds; after returning to New York, the scheme expanded.
- Carbone, who had helped finance the trip, became involved through contacts at his furniture store; Sliker, a bank employee, was alleged to have assisted by facilitating transactions and causing false bank records to be created to permit funds to be disbursed.
- The government presented witness testimony, documentary proof, and a recorded telephone call between Carbone and Sliker to show knowing participation and intent.
- During trial, Carbone claimed he could not recall the recorded conversation and refused to confirm whether the voice on the tape was his.
- The trial judge listened to the recording, compared it with Carbone’s voice heard in court, and found sufficient evidence to permit the jury to hear the tape over objection.

## Issues

1. Whether a district judge, as a preliminary admissibility matter under Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 901(a), may authenticate a recorded voice by listening to the tape, comparing it with the defendant’s voice in court, and considering surrounding circumstances.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for bank embezzlement, bank larceny, interstate transportation of stolen property, falsification of bank records, and conspiracy.
3. Whether asserted trial errors in evidentiary rulings and instructions required reversal.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction for all defendants on the challenged counts.
- The court held the tape recording was properly admitted because the district judge could determine, under Rule 104(a), that there was sufficient evidence of authenticity to satisfy Rule 901(a).
- The court held the overall proof was sufficient to support the substantive and conspiracy convictions.
- Other claimed trial errors were rejected as non-prejudicial or within the district court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Authentication under Rule 901(a) requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims; the jury ultimately decides weight and credibility.
- Under Rule 104(a), the trial judge decides preliminary questions of admissibility, including whether a foundation for authenticity has been laid.
- A judge may rely on multiple bases to find sufficient authentication for a recorded voice, including comparison with a defendant’s voice heard in court and circumstantial evidence about the call’s context and participants.
- Admission of a recording after a threshold authenticity finding does not determine identity as a matter of fact; it permits the jury to consider the evidence and decide whether the voice is the defendant’s.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld convictions arising from a scheme using bogus foreign-bank checks and falsified banking records, and it clarified that trial courts may authenticate voice recordings as a preliminary matter by using judicial comparison and surrounding circumstances to find sufficient evidence for jury consideration under Rules 104(a) and 901(a).


United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984)