11. A threatening telephone call that purports to be from a defendant to a witness is most likely to be admitted against the defendant if

Statements made during a phone conversation may be authenticated by one of the parties to the call who testifies that the speaker has knowledge of certain facts that only a particular person would have.

A phone call may also be authenticated if a party called, for example, Mr. A's telephone number, and a voice answered, «This is Mr. A» or «This is the A residence.» This authenticates the conversation as being with Mr. A or his agent. Self-identification by the caller, however, is insufficient evidence to allow for the admission of the telephone call against the speaker.

C is correct. One method of authenticating a phone call is when the speaker has knowledge of certain facts that only a particular person would have. Here, because the witness had given his unlisted number only to the defendant and a few other people, it severely limited the number of individuals who knowingly could call and threaten the witness. Therefore, this is the best basis to support a finding that the telephone call is what the witness claims it to be.

A is incorrect. As explained above, the self-identification exception will not work here, because the defendant, who was the caller, not the receiver of the call, identified himself. This does not prove that the caller is the defendant, as it could easily be someone pretending to be the defendant to blame him.

B is incorrect. Damaging testimony by the witness against the defendant, although it provides a motive for the defendant to retaliate against the witness, is insufficient to allow for the admission of the telephone call against the defendant.

D is incorrect. The witness's subjective belief that the defendant is capable of making such threats is virtually irrelevant to the identification of the caller and the admissibility of the telephone call, and as such, would not be the most effective basis for admitting the phone call against the defendant.