Background

• Ortiz was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin and possession of heroin with intent to distribute.
• The district court admitted probation officer Angela McGlynn’s lay opinion recognizing Ortiz’s voice on wiretapped calls, though she spoke Spanish minimally and Ortiz spoke English.
• McGlynn supervised Ortiz from Oct 2011 to Mar 2012 and testified she had heard him speak in English and that his voice was distinctive.
• The calls were primarily in Spanish with some English phrases; McGlynn admitted limited Spanish ability and English-language familiarity with Ortiz.
• The court conducted an authentication inquiry outside the jury, concluding McGlynn’s testimony met the low Rule 901(b)(5) threshold.
• Ortiz challenged admissibility, arguing lack of sufficient familiarity and that the testimony went to weight, not admissibility.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2014) (voice identification requires minimal familiarity under Rule 901(b)(5))
• United States v. Thomas, 586 F.2d 123 (9th Cir. 1978) (lay opinion admissible with requisite familiarity)
• United States v. Plunk, 153 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (low threshold for voice identifications)
• United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) ( Rule 901(b)(5) familiarity standard explained)
• United States v. Zepeda-Lopez, 478 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2007) (comparative analysis of voice identification without full language fluency)
• United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2000) (weight vs. admissibility considerations for lay testimony)
• United States v. Montoya, 45 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 1995) (issues not raised on appeal deemed waived)
• United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc standard for evaluating evidentiary rulings)
• United States v. Beck, 418 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)