See United States v. Tropeano, 252 F.3d 653, 661 (2d Cir.2001); United States v. Pluta, 176 F.3d 43, 49 (2d Cir.1999) (“[T]he burden of authentication does not require the proponent of the evidence to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity____Rather, the standard for authentication, and hence for admissibility, is one of reasonable likelihood.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, “[a]uthentication of course merely renders [audio] tapes admissible, leaving the issue of their ultimate reliability to the jury,” and any doubts raised at trial concerning their reliability “would ... go to the weight to be given to the tapes by the jury, not to their admissibility.” Tropeano, 252 F.3d at 661; see also United States v. Sovie, 122 F.3d 122, 127 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). McLaurin argues that the admission of the
holding that proof of a continuous chain of custody is relevant only as to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts    goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility holding that use of product rule to calculate frequency of occurrence in caucasian and black populations is scientifically valid and that debate concerning ethnic substructures went to weight rather than admissibility of evidence holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility