Opinion ID: 686510
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Admission of Heroin and its Container

Text: 16 Mr. Williams further submits that the gray cylinder of heroin was improperly admitted at trial. Mr. Williams states that under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), the government did not establish an adequate foundation to demonstrate that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Specifically, Mr. Williams claims that no authentication was shown for the package from its seizure until its arrival at the heroin-testing laboratory. In his brief, he submits that [t]he record herein is devoid of evidence as to the whereabouts of the package before it was delivered to the lab, or the date it was transferred there, or the identity of the delivering party. Under these circumstances, it cannot be determined with any reasonable certainty that the subject package and its contents were the items seized at the scene. (Appellant's Br. at 19). 17 At trial, Mr. Williams' counsel failed to object to the authentication procedure of the gray cylindrical container and its contents. (Jury Trial, Tr. III at 286-87, 290-92). When a party fails to object in the district court, that party has waived the argument on appeal. An appellate court is not authorized to correct errors waived below that are not plain. United States v. Newman, 965 F.2d 206, 213 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 470, 121 L.Ed.2d 377 (1992). A plain error is not only a clear error but an error likely to have made a difference in the judgment, so that failure to correct it could result in a miscarriage of justice, that is, in the conviction of an innocent person. Id. 18 We cannot say that the admission of the cylinder was plain error. The standard for admission of evidence requires a showing that the evidence, when offered at trial, is in substantially the same condition as it was when the crime was allegedly committed. United States v. Lott, 854 F.2d 244, 250 (7th Cir.1988). If the trial judge believes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the evidence has not been altered in a material regard, he may permit the introduction of the evidence. United States v. Aviles, 623 F.2d 1192, 1198 (7th Cir.1980). Such a decision will only be reversed for clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Boykins, 9 F.3d 1278, 1285 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Lott, 854 F.2d at 250). As in this case, [w]here the exhibit's chain of custody is in question but there is no evidence of any tampering, there is a presumption that a system of regularity accompanied the handling of the evidence if the exhibits are at all times within official custody. Gaps in the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Id. (citations omitted). The district court acted well within its discretion in admitting at trial the gray cylinder and testimony regarding the chemical analysis of its contents.