In Grucci v. Grucci,1 the majority and dissent wrangled over whether a chain of custody is a predicate element for authenticating a tape recording. The majority, in dismissing the husband’s malicious prosecution action against the wife,2 Christine, held that it is. The dismissal of Michael’s action was anchored exclusively on the jury’s determination that Michael had not met the first element of malicious prosecution, that Christine had not initiated the prosecution.
What the majority dismissed as inconsequential to the outcome, to wit, Michael’s offer of proof, after Michael’s brother, Anthony, had been sworn in, that Anthony, would identify and authenticate the tape as a fair and accurate representation of his conversation with Christine, galvanized the dissent as having “prevented Michael from presenting the most powerful evidence in his case.”
Chain of Custody
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
