Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
43. Is the chemist's testimony admissible?
A defendant is on trial for possession of heroin. During the prosecution's case-in-chief, a police officer testifies that he watched another officer seize a bag of white powder from the defendant and seal it in an envelope, which both officers initialed and dated and then placed in the police property room. The prosecutor then calls a chemist to testify that she obtained, intact from the property room, the dated, sealed envelope with the initials of both police officers, whose handwriting she recognized from previous experience, and that testing disclosed that the powder therein was heroin. The defendant argues that the prosecutor has not sufficiently authenticated the powder tested by the chemist as the powder that was seized from the defendant.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. The chemist is not required to have firsthand knowledge that the powder came from the defendant.
B is incorrect. The prosecution generally does not need to produce real evidence to prove its case, even if the evidence is available. In this case, the evidence is readily identifiable and does not need to be produced.
C is incorrect. An object is not self-authenticating just because it is in official custody. Self-authentication is a rule that applies to documents, not real evidence.