United States v. Vitale:Defendant, JuanitaVitale was convicted on three counts of distributingcontrolled substances.In testimony, undercover Officer Zinselmeier stated he placed a phone callthe residence of Peggy Lindsay and that he could identify the voice as appellant, Vitale. Defensecounsel objected to lack of foundation. Zinselmeier testified he had spoken to Vitale three times(two were face to face) and that he could identify her voice. District court overruled defendantcounsel's objection.On a second phone call, Vitale identified herself and arranged to sellZinselmeier substances in a lot. Vitale had alleged based on the fact that Zinselmeier had neverspoken to her prior to the phone call and thus he could not have been able to identify her voicewhen the initial call was made. The court affirmed."Rule 901(b)(5) allows for identification of avoice by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting itwith the alleged speaker.""As indicated permits voice identification based upon familiarityacquired at any time including in anticipation of litigation