## Facts

- A federal grand jury charged Louis Elton Stone and Denise Sienhausen with (1) conspiracy to manufacture over 100 grams of methamphetamine and (2) attempt to manufacture over 100 grams of methamphetamine, aided and abetted by each other, under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
- The prosecution relied on recorded conversations between the defendants and a DEA undercover agent, who wore a concealed transmitter during meetings about obtaining chemicals and equipment to produce methamphetamine.
- A heavy thunderstorm interfered with reception, leaving substantial portions of the recordings difficult to understand.
- The undercover agent prepared written transcripts of the recordings.
- Before trial, the district judge listened to at least one tape while reviewing its transcript and determined the recordings were not so garbled that a participant or someone familiar with the conversations could not accurately transcribe them.
- Over defense objection, the court admitted the tapes into evidence and permitted jurors to use the transcripts only as listening aids while the tapes were played.
- The court instructed jurors that the tapes—not the transcripts—were the evidence and that jurors must rely on what they heard, not on what the government claimed was on the tapes.
- The jury convicted both defendants on both counts, and they appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting partially unintelligible tape recordings and allowing government-prepared transcripts to be used as listening aids.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants conspired and attempted to manufacture more than 100 grams of methamphetamine.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the convictions.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recordings despite partial unintelligibility.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting transcript use as an aid with limiting instructions and without admitting transcripts as substantive evidence.
- The evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy and attempt convictions, including the drug-quantity finding.

## Legal Principles

- Recordings with inaudible portions may be admitted unless the inaudible portions are so substantial that the recording as a whole is untrustworthy; admissibility is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- A trial court may permit jurors to use transcripts as listening aids when playing admissible recordings if the jury is instructed that the recordings control, the transcripts are not treated as evidence, and safeguards prevent transcripts from substituting for jurors’ hearing.
- Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed under the Jackson v. Virginia standard: viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- In drug manufacturing conspiracy and attempt cases, recorded statements and coordinated preparatory conduct can support findings of agreement, intent, substantial steps toward completion, and contemplated quantity.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Stone’s and Sienhausen’s convictions for conspiracy and attempt to manufacture more than 100 grams of methamphetamine, holding that the district court properly admitted partially unintelligible recordings, properly allowed transcripts as limited listening aids with clear instructions, and that the trial evidence was sufficient under Jackson to sustain both verdicts.


United States v. Stone, 960 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1992)