Opinion ID: 1152348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issue # 1: Did Hemphill Receive a Fair Trial?

Text: Hemphill first contends that he did not receive a fair trial for the following reasons. He believes the circuit judge should not have allowed the State to introduce at trial the marijuana seized from his residence because of a broken chain of custody and because of the possibility of tampering. For support, he explains that the marijuana was not properly sealed in evidence bags and, as a consequence, marijuana residue was able to seep through holes or openings when the bags were shaken. Hemphill also explains that the marijuana was handled by a Mississippi Crime Laboratory analyst, Steve Howard, who is no longer so employed and who did not testify at the trial. Hemphill finally explains that the circuit judge should not have refused to direct John Maddox, another analyst, to reveal during testimony why Howard was no longer employed by the crime lab; the judge's refusal was based on irrelevancy. In sum, Hemphill seems to infer that: (1) because marijuana residue could seep from the evidence bags in which the leafy green substance was placed, and (2) because the marijuana was handled by an analyst who mysteriously is no longer employed by the Mississippi Crime Laboratory and who did not testify, (3) the chain of custody was broken, tampering possibly occurred and, thus, Hemphill did not receive a fair trial.