United States v. Nault

I agree with the majority opinion that there was a fatal gap in the chain of custody and, therefore, concur in the disposition of the case; but in other respects, I disagree with it.

*321Although unnecessary to disposition of the case, the majority hold that a chain of custody receipt for property taken from an apprehended accused is inadmissible in evidence. That ruling is predicated on paragraph 144d of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition). I read the provision to support admissibility of the document.

Paragraph 144d is captioned: “Limitations as to the…