Opinion ID: 504457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Chain of Custody of Envelope Showing Tread Print of Shoe

Text: 85 Defendant Lumbar argues that the chain of custody of Exhibit 7, the envelope containing the partial shoe tread print, was not established because the evidence control clerk did not testify. 86 In United States v. Anderson, 654 F.2d 1264 (8th Cir.1981), this court relied on the District of Columbia Circuit's analysis for chain of custody challenges. The court stated as follows: 87 The principles governing chain of custody challenges were outlined in United States v. Lane, 591 F.2d 961 (D.C.Cir.1979), as follows: 88 Tangible evidence of crime is admissible when shown to be in substantially the same condition as when the crime was committed. And it is to be presumed that the integrity of evidence routinely handled by governmental officials was suitably preserved [unless the accused makes] a minimal showing of ill will, bad faith, evil motivation, or some evidence of tampering. If, however, that condition is met, the Government must establish that acceptable precautions were taken to maintain the evidence in its original state. 89 The undertaking on that score need not rule out every conceivable chance that somehow the identity or character of the evidence underwent change. [T]he possibility of misidentification and adulteration must be eliminated, we have said, not absolutely, but as a matter of reasonable probability. So long as the court is persuaded that as a matter of normal likelihood the evidence has been adequately safeguarded, the jury should be permitted to consider and assess it in the light of surrounding circumstances. 90 Id. at 962 (footnotes omitted). See also United States v. Brown, 482 F.2d 1226, 1228 (8th Cir.1973); Brewer v. United States, 353 F.2d 260, 262-63 (8th Cir.1965). 91 654 F.2d at 1267. As in Anderson, defendant Lumbar has produced no evidence of tampering or improper motive by the government. Agent Williamson testified that he found the envelope on a teller counter in the bank, put the envelope in a box, marked it, and turned it over to the evidence control clerk. Agent Goergen mailed the envelope, along with much of the other evidence, to Washington, DC, where it was examined by an expert. The expert who examined the envelope initialed it, sent it back to the FBI in Minneapolis, and testified that the envelope was in the same physical condition as when he first examined it. Williamson also noted at trial that the envelope looked substantially the same as the day of the robbery and still had a faint print on it. 92 We are satisfied that chain of custody of Exhibit 7 was adequately shown. 93 The judgments are AFFIRMED.