Tape Played for Jury After Noisy Debate : Trial: Lawyers in Camarena case argue about whether amplified recording should be heard. Judge OKs it, but prosecutor casts doubt on qualifications of audio expert.

A Los Angeles federal court jury Thursday heard an amplified version of a secretly made tape-recording on which a defendant on trial for the murder of Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique Camarena told federal authorities that he had not been present when Camarena was tortured and murdered.

Accompanied by a graphics presentation, the tape was played only after a rancorous debate over the qualifications of the defense expert witness who prepared the amplified version.

A federal prosecutor’s challenge of the witness’ qualifications was so severe it may have seriously eroded the impact of his presentation. Even the judge remarked without the jury present that the qualifications were among “the worst” he had encountered.

Juan Jose Bernabe Ramirez, 31, faces life imprisonment if convicted of all the charges pending against him. The charges include committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering, conspiring to kidnap Camarena, participating in the kidnaping and murder of Camarena and aiding and abetting the escape of a Mexican drug lord after Camarena was murdered.

Whether Bernabe was inside or outside the Guadalajara house where Camarena was tortured in February, 1985, is potentially an important legal distinction that could determine what charges Bernabe can be convicted of, said his attorney, Mary Kelly.

That legal distinction is why she fought so vigorously to have the tape and its accompanying presentation put before the jury, she said.

Bernabe’s statements on the amplified tape played Thursday directly contradicted statements made June 21 by Hector Berrellez, the Los Angeles DEA agent who heads the Camarena murder investigation.

Berrellez testified that Bernabe, a former Mexican state policeman, told him last July 25 that he had been present when Camarena was interrogated and tortured at a Guadalajara house. To buttress this assertion, prosecutors played a secretly recorded tape of a July 25 conversation between Bernabe and Berrellez, who was posing as a drug dealer.

At one point, the tape sounded as though Bernabe was telling Berrellez he had seen Camarena being interrogated. He referred to Camarena’s body being swollen, a possible indication that he had seen the agent. But the conversation left open the possibility that Bernabe had heard about Camarena’s condition from someone else.

Norman Perle, a self-described expert on audio authentication and enhancement, testified Thursday that he enhanced the audio quality of the tape using special equipment. He said the enhanced recording makes it clear that Bernabe responded “No, no, no,” when asked if he was present during Camarena’s interrogation.

A court-certified interpreter testified that he had reviewed a transcript of the tape and confirmed that on the enhanced tape Bernabe said “No, no, no” when Berrellez asked him if he was at the interrogation.

Bernabe has admitted that he accompanied his boss, drug kingpin Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, to the house where Camarena was interrogated. But he told DEA agents in other taped interviews that he remained outside the house.

Under questioning from Assistant U.S. Atty. John Carlton, Perle acknowledged in front of the jury that he had no formal scientific training and that his only diploma was from a high school. Many expert witnesses have advanced degrees and have written for scholarly journals.

Perle also was forced to acknowledge that a resume he had submitted to another federal judge in Los Angeles and to a state court judge in Orange County said he had an associate of arts degree when he has no such degree.

With the jury out of the courtroom for the mid-afternoon recess, Carlton strenuously asserted that Perle should not be allowed to testify as an expert. He accused Bernabe’s defense lawyers of trying to put on “a smoke and mirrors” show with a lot of gadgets that would unfairly sway the jury.

Defense lawyer Kelly retorted that she was only trying to bring out the truth about what Bernabe had told the DEA agents. She said there was no formal academic training for voice authentication, and that Perle had established his expertise through on-the-job experience and by working with a number of other experts in the field.

“That was one of the worst qualifications of an expert I’ve ever heard,” U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie told Kelly.

But he said that the federal court procedural rules for allowing a purported expert to testify favored permitting the testimony unless it had virtually no credibility.

Rafeedie said he would allow Perle to testify and let the jury draw its own conclusions about the worth of his statements.