element of Count Six as well as the judicial efficiency of joining all six counts in the same trial. Therefore, defendant’s motions to sever Counts One, Two, and Six from Counts Three, Four, and Five will be denied. E. The Audibility of the Government’s Audio and Video Recordings Defendant moves to preclude the Government’s audio and video recordings of conversations between defendant, the confidential informant, and the undercover ATF agent under the argument that portions of the recordings are inaudible. Defendant concedes that audio recordings must be substantially unintelligible in order to preclude the recording altogether on the basis that it is untrustworthy. See Defs. Mem. of Law in Supp., Dkt. No. 25, 20; see also United States v. Arango-Correa, 851 F.2d 54, 58 (2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Further, there is “a clear preference for the
holding that statements on tape recording were admissible for the limited purpose of putting the responses of the defendant in context and making them intelligible to the jury and recognizable as admissions holding presidential recordings and materials preservation act not to be bill of attainder holding a tape of a telephone call was admissible because one party to the call consented to the recording holding that under certain circumstances statements on a 911 tape may be admissible as a present sense impression holding that tape recordings may be admissible despite the inaudibility of portions of the conversations