In the case of Wilkerson v. State, the defendant sold drugs to an undercover cooperating witness who was being monitored by police and used an audiocassette recorder to record his transfer of money in exchange for some recreational drugs. The purchaser of the drugs was out of sight of the office for a few moments before the cooperating witness returned to the officer with drugs and the bait money gone. The actual exchange was not seen by the officer, but the audiotape caught the transaction properly. The defendant argued that the tape could not be authenticated because the officer did not hear it in real time and, therefore, the audiotape should not have been admitted. How did the reviewing court rule? Was the audiotape properly authenticated? Can the cooperating witness help authenticate the tape by acknowledging that it was an accurate record of the transaction?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In the case of Wilkerson v. State, the defendant sold drugs to an undercover cooperating witness who was being monitored by police and used an audiocassette recorder to record his transfer of money in exchange for some recreational drugs. The purchaser of the drugs was out of sight of the office for a few moments before the cooperating witness returned to the officer with drugs and the bait money gone. The actual exchange was not seen by the officer, but the audiotape caught the transaction properly. The defendant argued that the tape could not be authenticated because the officer did not hear it in real time and, therefore, the audiotape should not have been admitted. How did the reviewing court rule? Was the audiotape properly authenticated? Can the cooperating witness help authenticate the tape by acknowledging that it was an accurate record of the transaction?

In the Case of Wilkerson V