CHAIN OF CUSTODY
The movement and location of physical evidence from the time it is obtained until the time it is presented in court.
Judges in bench trials and jurors in jury trials are obligated to decide cases on the evidence
that is presented to them in court. Neither judges nor jurors may conduct their own investigations into the underlying facts of a given case. In fact, state and federal court rules prohibit judges and jurors from being swayed by, or even taking into consideration, extrajudicial evidence—that is, evidence that is not properly admitted into the record pursuant to the rules of evidence—in rendering their decisions.
Similarly, parties to civil and criminal litigation depend on judges and juries to impartially
weigh the evidence, and only the evidence, that is properly admitted into the record. Every day, across the United States, litigants stake their reputations, livelihoods, bank accounts, homes, PERSONAL PROPERTY, and freedom on the premise that the outcome to their judicial proceedings will be one that is reached fairly and justly, according to the evidence.
Court-rendered judgments and jury verdicts
that are based on tainted, unreliable, or compro-
mised evidence would undermine the integrity
of the entire legal system if such outcomes
became commonplace. One way in which the
law tries to ensure the integrity of evidence is by
requiring proof of the chain of custody by the
party who is seeking to introduce a particular
piece of evidence.
Proof of a chain of custody is required when
the evidence that is sought to be introduced at
trial is not unique or where the relevance of the
evidence depends on its analysis after seizure. A
proper chain of custody requires three types of
testimony: (1) testimony that a piece of evidence
is what it purports to be (for example, a litigant’s
blood sample); (2) testimony of continuous
possession by each individual who has had pos-
session of the evidence from the time it is seized
until the time it is presented in court; and
(3) testimony by each person who has had pos-
session that the particular piece of evidence
remained in substantially the same condition
from the moment one person took possession
until the moment that person released the evi-
dence into the custody of another (for example,
testimony that the evidence was stored in a
secure location where no one but the person in
custody had access to it).
Proving chain of custody is necessary to “lay
a foundation†for the evidence in question, by
showing the absence of alteration, substitution,
or change of condition. Specifically, foundation
testimony for tangible evidence requires that
exhibits be identified as being in substantially
the same condition as they were at the time the
evidence was seized, and that the exhibit has
remained in that condition through an unbro-
ken chain of custody. For example, suppose that
in a prosecution for possession of illegal narcotics,
police sergeant A recovers drugs from the defendant; A gives police officer B the drugs; B
then gives the drugs to police scientist C, who
conducts an analysis of the drugs; C gives the
drugs to police detective D, who brings the
drugs to court. The testimony of A, B, C, and D
constitute a “chain of custody” for the drugs,
and the prosecution would need to offer testimony
by each person in the chain to establish
both the condition and identification of the evidence,
unless the defendant stipulated as to the
chain of custody in order to save time.
Chain of custody need not be demonstrated
for every piece of tangible evidence that is
accepted into the trial court’s record. Physical
evidence that is readily identifiable by the
witness might not need to be supported by
chain-of-custody proof. For example, no chainof-
custody foundation is required for items that
are imprinted with a serial number or inscribed
with initials by an officer who collected the evidence.
Similarly, items that are inherently distinctive
or memorable (for example, a holdup
note written in purple crayon) might be sufficiently
unique and identifiable that they establish
the integrity of the evidence.
Whether the requisite foundation has been
laid to establish chain of custody for an exhibit
is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial
judge. Possibilities of misidentification and
adulteration must be eliminated, not absolutely,
but as a matter of reasonable probability.Where
there is sufficient testimony that the evidence is
what it purports to be, and that testimony is
offered by each responsible person in the chain
of custody, discrepancies as to accuracy or reliability
of testimony regarding the chain of custody
go to the weight of the evidence and not to
its admissibility, meaning that the evidence
would be admitted into the record for the judge
or jury to evaluate in light of any conflicting testimony
that the chain of custody somehow had
been compromised. While the party who offers
the evidence has the burden of demonstrating
the chain of custody, the party against whom
the evidence is offered must timely object to the
evidence when it is first introduced at trial, or
the party will waive any objections as to its
integrity based on a compromised chain of
custody.
FURTHER READINGS
Giannelli, Paul. 1996. “Chain of Custody.”Criminal Law Bulletin
32.
–——. 1983. “Chain of Custody and the Handling of Real
Evidence.” American Criminal Law Review 20.
