Players: Judges Blackburne-Rigsby and Easterly, and Senior Judge Reid. Per curiam opinion. Concurrence by Judge Easterly. Deborah Persico for Mr. Wonson. Trial Judge: Thomas J. Motley
Facts: At a murder trial, the government admitted ballistics evidence without proving chain of custody. A crime-scene technician testified to collecting the ballistics evidence and a firearms and toolmark examiner testified about his examination of the evidence, but there was no testimony explaining how the evidence got from the technician to the examiner.
Issue: Was it reversible error for the trial court to admit the ballistics evidence?
Holding: No. There is no need to decide whether it was error at all because if it was error, it was harmless. The Court reasoned that the ballistics evidence was only a “peripheral part” of the government’s case against Mr. Wonson, which included a co-defendant’s inculpatory testimony and two witnesses who corroborated the co-defendant’s story.
Concurrence: Judge Easterly opined that the trial court’s admission of the ballistics evidence was erroneous. Judge Easterly recapped what the government must prove before admitting physical evidence. First, the government must show that “the objects are genuine—i.e., that the proffered evidence is what the government says it is.” Second, the government “must establish the integrity of the evidence—i.e., that the evidence has not changed in material ways.” The government must also establish an unbroken chain of custody by a reasonable probability to gain an “evidentiary presumption that it handled and suitably preserved the evidence.” Absent this showing, the trial court must generally exclude the physical evidence. Judge Easterly rejected the government’s argument that a break in the chain of custody affects only the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. DH
No comments:
Post a Comment