Are there heightened authentication requirements for the admissibility of audio tapes, sound recordings, video tapes, films, and moving images?

Cole v. Tansy, 926 F.2d 955, 958 (10th Cir. 1991) (upholding trial court's admission of the unidentified witness's statement against petitioner as an excited utterance because all three requirements were met:....A statement can qualify as an excited utterance for purposes of the hearsay exception created by by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) personally perceived the exciting event or condition to which his or her statement relates.

United States v. Williams, 264 F.3d 561, 574 (5th Cir. 2001) (conspiracy trial; "Government introduced a summary chart detailing telephone calls between Defendant and other alleged co-conspirators"; "(E)ven if we credit Defendant's argument that the Government cannot prove who made the calls or what their...Evidence is relevant if it increases or decreases to any degree the probability of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.

Fed. R. Evid. 406 ("Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.").The habit of a natural person is admissible to show the person's conduct on a particular occasion.