VOICEPRINTSVOICEPRINTSVOICEPRINTSVOICEPRINTSVOICEPRINTS
I. DEFINITION
Voiceprint analysis is a method of sound
identification which utilizes the spectrograph machine.
This machine decomposes the sound of the human voice
into frequency components which are graphically
recorded, thus producing the spectrogram or voiceprint.
Voiceprints are then compared by persons trained in the
use of the method for possible identification purposes.
Although the machine was invented during World War
II, it was not until the 1960’s that Lawrence Kersta
conducted experiments in spectrography at Bell
Telephone Laboratories which convinced him that there
were unique characteristics of each person’s voice which
could be used for reliable identification of individuals by
spectrograms. State v. Andretta, 61 N.J. 544 (1972);
D’Arc v. D’Arc, 157 N.J. Super. 553 (Ch. Div. 1978).
II. NON-PRIVILEGED
The State may compel a criminal defendant to speak
for a voiceprint test. State v. Andretta, 61 N.J. 544
(1972); State v. Cary, 49 N.J. 343 (1967).
III. ADMISSIBILITY
The results of the test will not be admitted into
evidence until the trial judge holds a pre-trial hearing “to
determine whether any identification arrived at through
the use of this method is sufficiently reliable to be
admissible in light of the proofs which will be adduced as
to what the test shows, and such cross-examination of the
State’s experts and such opposing proofs as defendants
may be able to offer.” State v. Andretta, 61 N.J. 544, 551-
552 (1972); State v. Cary, 49 N.J. 343 (1967).
In Windmere, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 105 N.J.
373 (1987), the Supreme Court held that adherence to
our rules for determining the reliability of scientific
evidence precluded the admissibility of voiceprints into
evidence as reliable scientific tools for determining the
identity of a human voice on the record presented. Each
of the criteria for establishing the reliability of a scientific
device was impugned with respect to voiceprints. It
could not be said that there was general acceptance
within the relevant scientific community. Authoritative
scientific literature was in disarray and did not
demonstrate that there was any measure of universal
acceptance of the spectrograph’s reliability. There was no
general judicial acceptance of voiceprint analysis.
However, the Court observed “[w]hile in this case the
voiceprint evidence should not have been admitted, its
future use as a reasonably reliable scientific method may
not be precluded forever if more thorough proofs as to
reliability are introduced in other litigation.” Id. at 386.Improper admission of voiceprint evidence in
criminal or civil trial can constitute harmless error if it was
merely cumulative and not decisive of guilt. Windmere,
Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 105 N.J. 373 (1987).