United States v. Michael Whitelaw ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •            _____________
    No. 95-3553WM
    _____________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,            *
    *
    v.                                *
    *
    Michael D. Whitelaw,                   *
    *
    Appellant.           *
    _____________                   Appeals from the United States
    District Court for the Western
    No. 95-3650WM                   District of Missouri.
    _____________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,            *
    *
    v.                                *
    *
    Steven Merritt,   *
    *
    Appellant.           *
    _____________
    Submitted:     April 9, 1996
    Filed: June 12, 1996
    _____________
    Before FAGG, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
    _____________
    FAGG, Circuit Judge.
    Michael D. Whitelaw and Steven Merritt appeal their drug-related
    convictions.   We affirm.
    Whitelaw and Merritt contend the district court improperly admitted
    a substance into evidence that was seized when they were arrested and later
    analyzed as cocaine because the Government
    failed to establish a proper chain of custody.        We cannot agree.     Whitelaw
    and   Merritt   do   not   quarrel   with   the   arresting   officer's   testimony
    explaining how he seized, sealed, marked, and stored the packaged substance
    in a police evidence locker.          Likewise, they do not quarrel with the
    chemist's testimony about how he took the same marked and sealed bag from
    the crime laboratory vault, tested the substance inside, repackaged the
    substance and the original bag in another sealed plastic container, and
    then returned the sealed container to the laboratory vault until trial.
    Nor do they quarrel with the chemist's courtroom identification of the
    sealed container and all of its contents, or the arresting officer's
    testimony the bag he placed in the evidence locker was the same bag that
    was now inside the chemist's sealed container.
    According to Whitelaw and Merritt, the chain of custody is fatally
    flawed because the Government failed to track the bagged substance from the
    evidence locker to the crime laboratory.          Thus, they argue the custodial
    evidence does not show the chemist tested the substance seized by the
    arresting officer.    Their argument is foreclosed by our contrary holdings
    in United States v. Pressley, 
    978 F.2d 1026
    , 1028-29 (8th Cir. 1992) and
    United States v. Glaze, 
    643 F.2d 549
    , 552 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam).
    Although the Government could have easily avoided the problem raised in
    this appeal by merely producing the persons who handled the bag during the
    gap in the Government's custodial chain, we cannot say the district court
    abused its discretion in admitting the cocaine over Whitelaw and Merritt's
    objection.      Like the district court, we are satisfied that in all
    reasonable probability the substance seized by the arresting officer,
    tested by the chemist, and admitted into evidence is one and the same.          See
    
    Pressley, 978 F.2d at 1028-29
    .        Indeed, Merritt testified the substance
    seized by the arresting officer was cocaine, and neither Whitelaw nor
    Merritt claim the substance was tampered with, altered, or handled in bad
    faith by the Government.     See United States v. Miller, 
    994 F.2d 441
    , 443-44
    (8th Cir. 1993).
    -2-
    Whitelaw also contends the evidence is insufficient to support the
    jury's verdict on his drug-related firearm charge.     Although we do not
    ordinarily consider pro se briefs when a party is represented by counsel,
    see United States v. Marx, 
    991 F.2d 1369
    , 1375 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,
    
    114 S. Ct. 618
    (1993), our review of the record shows overwhelming evidence
    of Whitelaw's guilt.
    We thus affirm Whitelaw's and Merritt's convictions.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-3553

Filed Date: 6/12/1996

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015