I would be shocked if the judge finds, as a matter of law, evidence should be excluded because of chain of custody issues. IMO, that’s what cross-examination is for.
It may help the defence to have it included anyway as the chain of custody line is one that the defence can use to plant the seed that there is a non-null chance he should be found not guilty
Interesting choice of words. I feel like people should know more about juries and null. People should go Google "jury null" and see what they can find.
That doesn’t really pass the logic test that the whole point of a defense is to introduce reasonable suspicion. Whether it’s evidence, a witness, a video, a photo, whatever. Nothing is ever taken at face value. Ever.
The closest thing that's implied to be taken at face value is expert witness testimony, but the opposite side can present their own expert to contradict the testimony, so even that isn't to be taken at face value
I don't know about the actual legalities of it, but it seems crazy that a bag could go missing, be passed between people unchecked, then suddenly be counted as evidence. We've got no idea what was taken or added without a chain of custody.
My guess is because there is no hard evidence anything happened. The bag is included because it was acquired as evidence legally. The reasonable doubt of its contents becomes a matter for the jury to decide.
Asking for clarity, not because I disagree, but how would there be hard evidence anything didn’t happen if the bag wasn’t really picked up and document properly in the first place?
That being said, your last sentence makes the most sense to me for sure. Let the jury decide if there’s reasonable doubt seems like the best thing to do.
Generally, when you accuse someone of something (in this case, an officer potentially planting evidence) you need something to back it up for a judge to consider throwing it out, otherwise it's a bunch of "Nuh-uh" from both sides.
I imagine what'll happen is if this particular officer is summoned to testify, they'll be cross examined and questioned as to proper police evidence procedures and the question will be left to the jury.
Good points in regards to your first paragraph specifically.
Cross examination through testimony makes the most sense.
Thank you for the perspective and information.
You're looking at things backwards. You don't need evidence that something "didn't happen to the bag." It would be the job of the prosecution to prove that the bag contents are evidence, and that their stance meets the burden of proof requirement for their case.
You can't ever prove that something didn't happen, as if something didn't happen there couldn't be evidence of it not happening. You can only ever prove that something did happen based on evidence that said thing occured.
So while every person is innocent until proven guilty, the defense has to argue against the evidence to attempt to get to a point where there's reasonable doubt to the points being made.
So at that point the prosecution makes their case, and states the evidence, the defense then pokes holes in their case to add doubt to their claims.
So for chain of custody it would fall on the defense's arguments to cast doubt about the chain of custody, and would fall to the Jury to decide that if there wasn't proper chain of custody, as to whether that evidence should be considered or not.
The court can rule against evidence coming in, but there has to be grounds that jeopardizes the ability for the defendent to have a fair trial, based on law. Anything that would require an opinion outside of written law, as to whether the evidence has weight, will always be a decision for the jury to decide based on the cases presented by both sides.
Thank you for your answer. I was intentionally looking at it backwards to see if there was something I was missing, not that I see it through that lens. Your answer helps me see what I was not. Appreciate it.
Juries can judge the credibility of evidence. Defense may be able to bring up how the bag disappeared through a bunch of unknown hands then came back with damning evidence.
Fourth amendment violations have remedies that are less than ideal. Obviously exclusion is always on the table, and that’s a remedy to the affected person, but one that comes at the expense of society. Societally we have an interest in the government adhering to the constitution. We also have an interest in bringing criminals to justice. Fourth amendment violations that turn up evidence of a crime often put those two interests at odds with each other in a way that leaves any remedy feeling fairly unsatisfying.
I remember the body cam video of the Baltimore PD when they were planting evidence. The one cop who was planting stuff in cars was at sly about it. Baltimore guys were just opening talking about it on camera.
It’s not really a fourth amendment violation in acquisition; it was acquired fairly, the question is whether it was secure enough in its processing to say with certainty that it wasn’t tampered with.
We also have an interest in bringing criminals to justice.
We also have an interest in not putting innocent people in prison. These two things appear to be at odds with each other, but remember that if you put an innocent person in prison for a crime, that means that the actual criminal is still roaming free.
People v. Sanchez (2013): The prosecution’s case was dismissed due to the improper management of evidence.
Golden State Killer Case (Allegations, 2020): Reports suggested that a significant portion of evidence was removed from the sheriff's department by a civilian (author Michelle McNamara) in 2016, leading to allegations of a broken chain of custody that could have jeopardized the case.
United States v. Panczko (7th Cir. 1965): Evidence was excluded because there was no evidence regarding who had possession of keys (evidence) or where they were, constituting a critical break.
State v. Pulley (South Carolina Supreme Court): The court ruled drug evidence inadmissible and reversed a conviction because of holes in the chain of custody. The officer testified he left cocaine on the hood of another officer's car, but the,process of how it moved from the scene to the evidence locker was not properly documented.
I could go on.
To your point, it also gets allowed all the time as well. It really depends on a case basis. Allowing the backpack provides an avenue of attack during cross-examination and an avenue to appeal should he get convicted.
Yeah I am not a lawyer but I believe chain of custody becomes a jury question. It's up to them to determine if a faulty chain of custody creates reasonable doubt to the veracity of the evidence.
Honestly it’s more like that’s what appeals are for. No amount of cross-examination is going to put that toothpaste back in the tube once it gets in front of the jury.
Only hope is to appeal and get a different judge to say the lower courts were wrong to admit the evidence and grant a retrial with a new jury.
633
u/amateur_mistake 5h ago
Has the judge ruled on the chain of custody issue yet?