◆ SpookStack

67 was given some discretion as to what. calls to record, this —— €ourt is satisfied.that he exercised that discretion by recording all calls and conversations that he could consis- tently with safety and convenience. There is no evidence presented by any of the defendants that a particular-phone call or conversation exonerated him or that the lack of a particular recording in any way prejudiced him. © 7 Undoubtedly, there were many unrecorded phone calls and conversations in which Weinberg participated over the many months of the investigation, but the evidence eee ete ee kw shows no pattern or purpose to them that would warrant an inference of misconduct or evil intent. Nor does the constitution demand that the FBI or an informant record every conversation witha subject. Preserving evidence in electronic form may add credence to the government's case, but failure to record raises no constitutional defect; it does no more than possibly reduce the persuasive quality of the government's case in the eyes of the jury. Moreover, and contrary to defendants’ assertions, Weinberg was supervised extensively by the FBI. In an investigation that spanned many months and meetings all along the east coast, Weinberg was in virtually daily contact with Amoroso, and his recordings were delivered to the FBI for transcribing on a periodic basis. Most importantly, the key events on which the government relied in presenting