CI not necessary to establish chain of custody
In State v. Valentine, an appeal from Horry County, S.C. from a conviction for trafficking in cocaine, the S.C. Supreme Court, on February 8, held that it was not necessary for the prosecution to produce the CI (confidential informant) at trial to establish the chain of custody:
As we explained in Sweet, "Where other evidence establishes the identity of those who have handled the evidence and reasonably demonstrates the manner of handling the evidence, our courts have been willing to fill gaps in the chain of custody due to an absent witness." 374 S.C. at 7, 647 S.E.2d at 206.
I don't get this decision, and I think it is wrong. The Court notes that the CI "was under direct police observation except during the approximately ten minutes he was in the apartment and only under audio surveillance." But this ignores the nature of a CI in a drug transaction - the CI is likely a drug user or dealer, who has charges pending himself, who is doing everything that he can to keep himself out of prison, which will include cheating, stealing, and lying to the police to secure his own freedom.
The CI has every reason to be dishonest, even to the point of setting someone else up so that he can keep himself out of prison. This is not an evidence tech who walked an evidence bag from one room to another so the chemist could test it, and who has submitted an affidavit regarding the condition of the evidence and what was done with it. This is a person who is dishonest by nature. I'm not saying that the CI in this particular case set up Valentine - I have no idea. I'm saying that the prosecution needs to prove their case, and the defense has the right to cross-examine the CI in a case like this one, to explore what actually happened in the moments when the CI was not in view of the police.
