Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

Last week, a blog discussed the right of the defendant to have certain non-essential witnesses sequestered so as to prevent the potential for bias. Failure to properly sequester a witness can result in a new trial and potentially an acquittal. Using the same facts as described in the Tennessee DUI case, State v. Anderson, the “chain of custody” issue will be discussed here.

Chain of custody refers to the documentation of evidence as it passes from person to person, agency to agency. Because evidence is used to convict people of crimes, the state has the initial burden to prove that evidence was scrupulously and carefully handled so as to prevent, for example, the appearance that evidence may have been fraudulently planted or mistakenly identified. If the state fails in this burden, a skilled Knoxville criminal defense attorney may allege tampering or misconduct in an attempt to get his or her client acquitted or to overturn a guilty verdict on appeal. If you have been charged with a DUI in Tennessee, call Baker Associates at 866-853-2888 for a free consultation.

Over the defendant’s objections in Anderson, the trial court allowed the prosecution to introduce the test kit used to determine the defendant’s blood alcohol level. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the state’s evidence establishing the chain of custody of defendant’s blood test kit.

At the hearing, the defendant called the appeals court’s attention to the state’s failure to present testimony regarding the steps taken to distinguish the defendant’s test kit from any other test kits. In particular, the State did not present any evidence of distinguishing marks (such as an evidence ID number) that could show definitively that the test kit belonged to the defendant. Consequently, the appeals court ruled that the test kit evidence for the DUI in Tennessee case should not have been admitted, that the mistake was not harmless error, and that a new trial should be granted.