In this episode, I read the recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario of R. v. Prasad, 2024 ONCA 601. In this case, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejects the appeal and questions the usefulness, and admissibility, of expert evidence opining on the phenomena of "priming" in the context of poor quality intercepted audio.

Akshay Prasad, who was convicted of trafficking cocaine based on intercepted communications. The trial judge heavily relied on these recordings, despite their poor quality, and transcripts produced from digitally enhanced versions of the recordings. Prasad appealed the conviction, arguing that fresh expert evidence showed the recordings and transcripts were unreliable due to the phenomenon of priming, which could bias the listener. The Court of Appeal for Ontario ultimately dismissed Prasad's appeal to reopen the case, maintaining the conviction and ruling that the trial judge had appropriately handled the evidence.

I question whether transcripts should be admissible when it touches close to the ultimate issue in their interpretation and point out the Court of Appeal may be undervaluing how much interpretation goes into any form of transcribing.