BECAUSE SOUND RECORDINGS ARE SO DRAMATIC AS TO PREJUDICE JURIES AND ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE (ALTERED OR FALSE) THEIR INCLUSION UNDER LIBERALIZED STANDARDS IS UNFAIR TO CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS. NEVERTHELESS, SOUND RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN WITNESS MEMORY AND CAN EXPEDITE TRIALS. ADOPTION OF STRICT FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS BEST PRESERVES RECORDED SOUND EVIDENCE VIRTUES WHILE PROTECTING AGAINST FALSE OR CHANGED RECORDINGS. REQUIREMENTS ADOPTED BY MANY STATES INCLUDE STIPULATIONS ABOUT EQUIPMENT AND OPERATORS; ASSURANCES THAT THE RECORDING IS AUTHENTIC, UNCHANGED, AND MADE WITHOUT INDUCEMENT, AND PRESERVED IN A DEMONSTRABLE WAY; AND THAT SPEAKERS ARE INDENTIFIED. CALIFORNIA HAS TRADITIONALLY RULED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS CONCERNING SOUND-RECORDING EVIDENCE, BUT UNDER LIBERALIZED STANDARDS, THE STATE HAS RECENTLY ADOPTED TWO REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATE FOR WRITTEN BUT NOT SOUND-RECORDED EVIDENCE. AN ACTUAL CASE ILLUSTRATES THAT SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION IS OFTEN NOT ESTABLISHED AND LITTLE OR NO PROTECTION AGAINST FAULTY EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED. THE INADEQUACIES OF THE TWO CALIFORNIA LAWS--AUTHENTICATION BY CONTENT (ESTABLISHING THAT ONLY THE DEFENDANT COULD KNOW THE CONTENT) AND VOICE IDENTIFICATION--ARE DISCUSSED, AS ARE PRESENT DEFENDERS' DIFFICULTIES IN DEMONSTRATING A RECORDING'S LACK OF AUTHENTICITY, AND JURORS' CONFUSION UNDER LIBERALIZED STANDARDS. ADVICE IS GIVEN ON HOW TO PROVIDE FAIRER SOUND-RECORDING EVIDENCE STANDARDS IN CALIFORNIA. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.