involved an audio tape of oral conversations between a criminal defendant and an informant. 65 F.3d at 224-25. In that case, the court held that the informant’s portions of the conversations were admissible to provide context for the defendant’s portions because they “served as reciprocal and integrated utterance(s), reasonably required to place [the defendant’s] admissions into context and make them intelligible to the jury.” Id. at 225 (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. McDowell, 918 F.2d 1004, 1007 (1st Cir.1990) (“Nor can a defendant, having made admissions, keep from the jury other segments of the discussion reasonably required to place those admissions into context.”); United States v. Gutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
holding a tape of a telephone call was admissible because one party to the call consented to the recording 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 that the term other papers as defined in federal rules 7b2 and 11 refers to discovery motions interrogatories and requests for production and admissions and the responses thereto holding that failure to file timely responses to a request for admissions renders them admitted holding that under certain circumstances statements on a 911 tape may be admissible as a present sense impression