THE DISCUSSION FOCUSES, NONTECHNICALLY, ON TWO ASPECTS OF THE RELIABILITY QUESTION: (1) THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING WHETHER A TAPE RECORDING OFFERED IN EVIDENCE IS AN ORIGINAL, UNEDITED VERSION, AND (2) THE PROBLEM OF OBTAINING AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDING. DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED BY EXPERTS WHO ARE ASKED TO JUDGE THE AUTHENTICITY OF A COVERTLY OBTAINED TAPE RECORDING ARE DISCUSSED, INCLUDING THE TECHNICAL COMPLEXITIES OF SUCH AN INVESTIGATION, THE CONSIDERABLE TIME AND COSTS INVOLVED, AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE FINDINGS WILL BE INCONCLUSIVE. THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUITY OF HANDLING IN ESTABLISHING THE RELIABILITY OF TAPES AS EVIDENCE IS EMPHASIZED. IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT A TAPE HAS AT ALL TIMES BEEN IN THE HANDS OF THE PROPER AUTHORITIES, THE COURT IS LIKELY TO ACCEPT THE TAPE AS EVIDENCE. THAT MOST WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS OF TAPE RECORDINGS ARE INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE IS NOTED, AS IS THE TENDENCY FOR PEOPLE WHO BOTH READ A TRANSCRIPT AND HEAR A TAPE TO ALLOW WHAT THEY READ TO INFLUENCE WHAT THEY HEAR. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WHEN A MISUNDERSTANDING CROPS UP IN ORDINARY CONVERSATION IT IS EASILY RESOLVED, BUT THAT WHEN AN INCOMPLETE TRANSCRIPT RESULTS IN MISUNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF A JUDGE OR JURY, RESOLUTION IS NOT SO EASY. THE DISCUSSION CLOSES WITH A WARNING REGARDING THE POTENTIAL DANGERS OF IMPROPERLY HANDLED TAPED EVIDENCE. A QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION THAT FOLLOWED THE PRESENTATION IS DOCUMENTED. (LKM)