Chain of custody errors can often be resolved through witness testimony establishing reasonable probability that evidence remained unaltered. Perfect documentation isn’t required; the proponent must show by preponderance of evidence that tampering or substitution didn’t occur. Witnesses can testify about handling procedures, security measures, and recognition of evidence characteristics. Minor gaps in documentation don’t automatically exclude evidence if testimony reasonably accounts for custody.
The military judge determines whether custody evidence sufficiently establishes authenticity for admission, while the panel weighs any remaining custody doubts in determining evidential weight. Factors include the evidence’s nature, length of custody gaps, number of handlers, and security procedures. Fungible evidence like drugs requires stricter showing than unique items easily identified by characteristics. Testimony from each handler isn’t mandatory if reasonable inferences bridge minor gaps.
Defense challenges focus on creating reasonable doubt about evidence integrity rather than demanding perfect documentation. Cross-examination explores custody weaknesses, storage conditions, and access opportunities. Even with admission over objection, defense counsel can argue custody deficiencies undermine reliability. Serious custody breaches might warrant exclusion, particularly for critical evidence where tampering possibilities exist. The standard recognizes practical realities of evidence handling while protecting against admission of potentially compromised evidence. Witness testimony providing reasonable custody assurance typically suffices absent specific tampering indications.