Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5) and comparable State rules allow identification of a person's voice -- they allow identification of a speaker -- by a lay witness who has heard the purported speaker's voice on another occasion.

United States v. Wexler, 522 F.3d 194, 202-203 (2d Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's admission of deceased drug addict's court statements as statements against penal interest because "the requirements of the hearsay....Federal Rule of Evidence of Evidence 804(b)(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) advisory committee's note ("As a further assurance of fairness in thrusting upon a party the prior handling of the witness, the common law also insisted upon identity of parties, deviating only to the extent of allowing substitution of successors in a narrowly construed privity. Mutuality as an aspect of identity is...The hearsay exception for prior testimony can apply in a criminal trial or proceeding against a defendant even if the prosecuting party and offeror in the prior trial or proceeding was a different party and offeror (e.g., a different governmental unit).

Cf. Rodriguez v. United States, 286 F.3d 972, 984-984 (7th Cir. 2002) (the following language of the court is less than crystal-clear: "Some of the factors that a judge should consider in making this determination are: '(1) the impeachment value of the prior crime; (2) the point in time of the...A specific act of a witness sometimes may be used to impeach a witness, but if the act to be used for impeachment is similar to an act at issue in the trial, the risk of undue prejudice may increase and the trial court may therefore have more reason to exclude the impeaching act as unduly prejudicial.