Lockhart v. McCotter, 782 F.2d 1275

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

1986

Chapter

10

Title

Authentication

Page

453

Topic

Chain of Custody - Goes Only To Weight

Quick Notes

Lockhart was arrested and convicted of aggravated robbery.  Lockhart is arguing that there is no showing his wallet was actually recovered at the arrest, which show a break in the chain of custody.

Objects involved in a crime

o         Tangible objects involved in a crime, such as the wallet in the instant case, are admissible in evidence only when identified and shown to be in materially the same condition as at the time of the crime.

Establishing Chain of Custody

o         When the object has passed through several hands before being produced in court, it often is necessary to establish a chain of custody in order to prove either identity or lack of alteration

When Chain of Custody is not important

o         When an object cannot be easily altered or substituted, establishing a continuous chain of custody is not as important.

Chain of Custody - Goes Only To Weight

o         Absent evidence of substitution or alteration, the failure to establish a chain of custody will generally go only to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

If Object is involved in the Crime

o         When the object is expressly identified at trial as the object involved in the crime, establishing a chain of custody is not necessary for the object to be admissible.

Court - Pictures, He and Police Identified Wallet

o         The wallet, containing pictures of the robbery victim's girlfriend and her children, was readily identifiable and not subject to undetectable alteration.

o         The robbery victim specifically identified the wallet as the wallet which had been taken during the robbery.

o         Officer Kelley identified the wallet as the same wallet Kelley had removed from Lockhart's personal property envelope.

Court - Wallet would not have been excluded

o         A chain of custody objection by Lockhart's attorney would not have resulted in exclusion of the wallet.

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether failure to show that an item was recovered at the arrest excludes the objective?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o         United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which denied his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 based on a claim that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel both at trial and on appeal

Appellant

o         Affirmed

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl - Lockhart

Df - McCotter

Description

o         Lockhart was arrested and convicted of aggravated robbery in Dallas, Texas.

Paid $18 Dollars

o         On the day of his arrest, Lockhart had worked distributing hand circulars and been paid $18.00.

o         After work, Lockhart spent several  hours at the Stop-In Cafe in North Dallas.

Left Caf, Argued with Prostitute

o         Lockhart testified at trial that he left the cafe at approximately 11:00 p.m. following an argument with a prostitute.

James Hall was Robbed

o         At approximately the same time that Lockhart left the Stop-In Cafe and in that same neighborhood, James Hall, who had also just left the Stop-In Cafe, was robbed.

Put Knife to Throat

o         According to Hall, a man put a knife to Hall's throat and demanded Hall's money.

Stole $30

o         After giving the man his wallet, which contained $30.00, Hall was released.

Hall Called, Offices Arrived

o         When police officers arrived, Hall told the officers that his assailant was about 5 feet, 11 inches tall, weighed 170 pounds, and was wearing a red windbreaker and blue pants.

Police Officers spotted Hall

o         Hall identified Lockhart as the robber and, after Lockhart had been stopped and searched, identified a knife taken from Lockhart as the one used in the robbery.

Wallet was questionable

o         Although the police found $12.00 in Lockhart's pants, they could not recall whether they had also discovered Hall's stolen wallet at the time of Lockhart's arrest.

Striped Search at Jail

o         Purse - Wallet

o         A picture of Halls girlfriend and her child were in the wallet.

o         2 necklaces

o         2 knifes

o         $12.00 in cash

Several Months After Arrest

o         County Prosecutor noticed a purse had been taken from Lockhart and speculated that the inventoried purse could be the wallet taken in the robbery.

Lockhart Argues - No witness testified wallet was recovered

o         Lockhart's attorney pointed out to the jury that no State witness had testified that Hall's wallet had actually been recovered from Lockhart at the time of Lockhart's arrest. Smith did not call any additional witnesses.

Lockhart Asserted - Wallet had been planted in envelop

o         However, contrary to Smith's advice, Lockhart testified on his own behalf. Lockhart denied having committed the robbery and asserted that the wallet had been planted in his personal property envelope

Failure to Object to Introduction of Halls Wallet Into Evidence

Lockhart Contends - His counsel failed to object to wallet evidence

o         Lockhart contends that HAD his trial counsel RAISED a chain of custody objection to the State's introduction of the wallet, the wallet would have been EXCLUDED from evidence.

o         To establish a proper chain of custody to introducing the wallet, the State should have introduced testimony

o    (1) tracing the wallet from the arrest to Lockhart's property envelope;

o    (2) establishing the security of and limited access to the envelope; and

o    (3) tracing the wallet from the property envelope to the court.

Court - Traced from envelop to court

o         The State only introduced testimony tracing the wallet from Lockhart's property envelope to the court.

Court - failed to establish the security

o         The State failed to establish the security of the wallet once it had been removed from Lockhart's personal property envelope.

Magistrate -  The wallet was specifically unique and identifiable evidence

o         Because the wallet was "specifically unique and identifiable evidence," under Texas law a chain of custody objection would not have barred admission of the wallet.

o         The magistrate concluded that counsel's failure to assert such an objection had not prejudiced Lockhart

Court - Agrees with Magistrate

o         Lockhart was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to assert a chain of custody objection.

Objects involved in a crime

o         Tangible objects involved in a crime, such as the wallet in the instant case, are admissible in evidence only when identified and shown to be in materially the same condition as at the time of the crime.

Establishing Chain of Custody

o         When the object has passed through several hands before being produced in court, it often is necessary to establish a chain of custody in order to prove either identity or lack of alteration

When Chain of Custody is not important

o         When an object cannot be easily altered or substituted, establishing a continuous chain of custody is not as important.

Chain of Custody - Goes Only To Weight

o         Absent evidence of substitution or alteration, the failure to establish a chain of custody will generally go only to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

If Object is involved in the Crime

o         When the object is expressly identified at trial as the object involved in the crime, establishing a chain of custody is not necessary for the object to be admissible.

Court - Pictures, He and Police Identified Wallet

o         The wallet, containing pictures of the robbery victim's girlfriend and her children, was readily identifiable and not subject to undetectable alteration.

o         The robbery victim specifically identified the wallet as the wallet which had been taken during the robbery.

o         Officer Kelley identified the wallet as the same wallet Kelley had removed from Lockhart's personal property envelope.

Court - Wallet would not have been excluded

o         A chain of custody objection by Lockhart's attorney would not have resulted in exclusion of the wallet.

Court - Objection failure did not prejudice Lockhart

In these circumstances, the attorney's failure to assert a chain of custody objection, which at best only went to the weight of the evidence, cannot be said to have prejudiced Lockhart.

Affirmed.

Rules

Objects involved in a crime

o         Tangible objects involved in a crime, such as the wallet in the instant case, are admissible in evidence only when identified and shown to be in materially the same condition as at the time of the crime.

Establishing Chain of Custody

o         When the object has passed through several hands before being produced in court, it often is necessary to establish a chain of custody in order to prove either identity or lack of alteration

When Chain of Custody is not important

o         When an object cannot be easily altered or substituted, establishing a continuous chain of custody is not as important.

Chain of Custody - Goes Only To Weight

o         Absent evidence of substitution or alteration, the failure to establish a chain of custody will generally go only to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

If Object is involved in the Crime

o         When the object is expressly identified at trial as the object involved in the crime, establishing a chain of custody is not necessary for the object to be admissible.

Class Notes