The question as to the admissibility of voice identification test in the American Courts came in the 1960s in the case of United States v. Wright[1] where the appellate court allowed the voice identification evidence to be admissible by the board of review. Next very important concern raised was whether voice identification to be considered as the substantive evidence or corroborative evidence, the Supreme Court of Minnesota in the case of State ex rel. Trimble v. Heldman[2] stated that spectrograms to be made admissible for corroborative evidence. In the year 1976, the Supreme Court of New York in the case of People v. Rogers[3] also supported the admissibility of spectrograph voice identification as the proper piece of evidence.
Further, in 1989, in an appeal of the case United States of America v. Tamara Jo Smith[4] the United States Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit) upheld the decision given by the United States District court for the Northern District of Illinois stating the admissibility of spectrographic voice identification evidence as substantial evidence.
The judiciary while deciding upon the admissibility of tape recorded conversations in the case of Hopes v. H.M. Advocate[5] in a very befitting manner substantiated its points for considering the admissibility of voice identification. It contended that the advanced technology and novice devices are the order of the day and have their own pros and cons. Like the statements given by the Captain of the ship as to his observations cannot and should not be put down just because he used a telescope to see rather than the naked eyes similarly no scientific or advanced developments can be turned off just because they have used advanced technology which can be tampered with. There may be lacunae to the given theory which may be cured and may invite criticisms which is both necessary and important. However, it does not give the right to obliterate the idea altogether.
Further in the case of Rex v. Masqud[6] the Court of Criminal Appeal observed that photographs, situations and circumstances witnessed by binoculars and telescopes have been accepted as admissible evidence in the court of law. It has therefore accepted one of the primary senses of ‘seeing’. The Court expressed its willingness to accept and adopt to the changes and advancements of the scientific technologies in the justice delivery system thereby ensuring speedy justice by also allowing to sensitize the sense of ‘hearing’ and advocating the acceptance of voice identification process in the forensic sciences.
It can be well concluded by stating that voice identification with further advanced standards and authenticity and wide acceptance can be proved to be of immense assistance to the legal world and has enormous benefits such as quick analysis of recordings for recognition of voices and in the investigation support for Police forces and Law Enforcement Agencies. However, as there are two sides to every coin likewise this technology is also not without its limitations or vices. The propositions in support of the statement are that voices of an individual may change with age and time, wearing of false teeth, stress, illness or intoxication. There are still other factors such as shifting of a person from one country or region to another thereby bringing a change in one’s accent.
[1] USCMA 183, 37 CMR 447 (1967)
[2] 192 NW, 2d 432(Minn. 1971)
[3] 48 N.Y.2d 167.
[4] 869 F.2d 348.
[5] 1060 Scots Law Times 264.
[6] 1965(2) ALL ER, 461.
