The ongoing Capitol arson case involving former Speaker Cllr Fonati Koffa and six other g lawmakers on Friday, December 12 took a dramatic twist, when Judge Roosevelt Willie of Criminal Court 'A' denied the defense's request to transcribe audio recordings as evidence.
The audio recording, allegedly extracted from a defendant's phone, is a key piece of evidence presented by the prosecution.
This decision is a point of contention, as legal experts argue that unauthenticated or untranscribed audio evidence can pose a risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
One of the legal experts argues that this decision likely hinges on specific rules governing evidence presentation, which outlines procedures for electronic recordings presented as evidence.
According to the lawyer, generally, courts prioritize the original recording as the primary evidence, with transcripts serving as supplementary aids.
But the lawyer argued that audio recordings must meet relevance and authenticity standards. And the courts should permit transcripts if they facilitate understanding, but accuracy is crucial, so ensuring the recording's integrity is vital.
Willie's decision meant that the jury must rely on their own interpretation of the poor-quality recordings.
However, when played in court, it was frustrating and difficult for jurors to understand, the prosecution's key evidence - an audio recording - was rendered almost useless due to poor quality.
Another lawyer noted that in this case, the prosecution may need to provide additional evidence or testimony to authenticate the recording and establish its chain of custody.
"They may also need to provide a transcript or explanation of the recording's content, which could be challenging given its poor quality," the lawyer argued.
Another lawyer said, "The court admissibility of audio evidence depends on its authenticity, relevance, and reliability. If the distortion is too severe, the evidence may be deemed inadmissible," one of the legal experts claimed.
According to the lawyer, leaving the distorted audio recordings without being transcribed with the jury is a challenging situation for the defense.
" The jury's interpretation of the recordings could be influenced by various factors, including their individual biases and the context in which they're presented," the lawyer emphasized.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
One of the lawyers said that in cases like this, the court typically instructs the jury to use transcripts only as an aid and to rely on their own interpretation of the recordings.
However, the lawyer argued that this may not be enough to prevent the influence of contextual priming, where the jurors' expectations and background knowledge affect their perception of the evidence.
"Jurors may be swayed by inaccurate transcripts, even if they're instructed to rely on their own ears," the lawyer emphasized
Initially, the defense lawyers raised multiple objections to the audio evidence, arguing that:
It may be "AI-generated" or manipulated.
The chain of custody was unclear, as the investigating officer who presented it did not personally extract it from a phone. And. the witness presenting the audio was not a certified voice analyst or technical expert.
