Describe a specific example of a common chain of custody error and explain the potential consequences for the admissibility of evidence in court.

A specific example of a common chain of custody error is a lapse in documentation regarding the transfer of evidence from the crime scene to the forensic laboratory. Imagine a blood sample collected at a crime scene is properly documented by the initial collecting officer, including the date, time, location, and their signature. However, the documentation fails to record who transported the sample to the lab, how it was transported, or when it arrived at the lab. This creates a gap in the chain of custody. The potential consequences for the admissibility of the evidence in court are significant. The opposing party could argue that because there is no record of who possessed the sample during transit, there is no way to guarantee that the sample tested at the lab is the same sample collected at the crime scene. They might argue that the sample could have been tampered with, contaminated, or even switched with another sample during the undocumented transfer. This break in the chain of custody creates reasonable doubt about the integrity and authenticity of the evidence. As a result, the judge may rule the blood sample inadmissible, preventing the prosecution from using it as evidence against the defendant. The prosecution bears the burden of proving an unbroken chain of custody, and any lapse, no matter how seemingly minor, can compromise the admissibility of critical evidence.