Opinion ID: 6345528
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Circuit Court’s Ruling: Chain of Custody

Text: The circuit court’s determination that the containers were not authenticated because the Estate failed to establish a chain of custody constituted an abuse of discretion, as the ruling was grounded on the premise that establishing a chain of custody was a requirement for authentication of the samples. At the conclusion of the motions hearing, in ruling on the motion in limine, among other things, the circuit court stated: In product liability cases, such as the one that we have here, it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing, among other things, that first the product was in defective condition at the time it left the possession or control of the seller. And next pertinent to this case the product was expected to and did reach the consumer without substantial change in its condition. That’s a paraphrase certain of the elements that inform us in Phipps v. GM. The cite for Phipps which was the critical case drawing in the application of Restatement Second Tort Section 402(a) is 278 Maryland 337. That was back in 1976. A reliable chain of custody is of the utmost importance for authentication purposes where evidence is susceptible to tampering or commingling or alteration of some sort. That’s a paraphrase out of Best v. State, 79 Md App 241 at page 250 in 1989.