Law Religion Culture Review

Exploring the intersections of law, religion and culture. Copyright by Richard J. Radcliffe. All rights reserved.

Monday, February 19, 2007


We arrived at the point of the trial where we would introduce our "smoking gun"-- a tape recording of the other side's voice making some damaging admissions. As a bonus, the tape also included statements from a decedent greatly assisting our case. (Note: I already had the hearsay exceptions covered).

The other side's attorney practically pretzelized himself trying to keep the tape out of evidence. He vehemently argued that the tape was "inaudible," and hence a "waste" of the court's time. (He abandoned his hearsay objection.) The Court overruled that objection.

Reversing course, the attorney who just argued that the tape was "inaudible" now offered that he had transcribed it. He contended the transcript should be admitted instead of the tape. This reversal begged the question: "If the tape was inaudible, how did he manage to transcribe it?" The inconsistency floated over my adversary's head, as he bulldozed ahead with his "Plan B."

We of course want the Court to hear the telling tone of party's taped concessions/confessions for added drama. Since the trial recessed until March, we do not yet have the court's ruling whether the tape will be played.