The evidence list in your sex crime case can look terrifying. Phones, laptops, clothing, DNA tests, and medical records, all lined up in a charging document, can make it feel like the state already has everything it needs. What you do not see is the messy paper trail each one of those items took from the moment an officer seized it in Bryan to the moment the prosecutor added it to that list.
Every piece of evidence in a Bryan or Brazos County sex crime case depends on a written system of logging, labeling, and tracking. That system is built and maintained by real people, often working under pressure and making judgment calls late at night. When the evidence log is incomplete or inconsistent, the reliability of the entire case can be shaken, even when the item itself seems powerful at first glance.
As a criminal defense firm based in Bryan, led by a former Assistant District Attorney who once relied on these very logs in court, we take a hard look at the chain of custody in every serious case. We know how prosecutors think about evidence problems, we know the standards they say they follow, and we know how often the documentation falls short. In this guide, we walk you through how evidence logging is supposed to work, how it actually fails, and how those failures can become leverage in your defense.
Why Evidence Log Errors Matter So Much In Bryan Sex Crime Cases
Sex crime cases often lean heavily on physical and digital evidence. That can include sexual assault exam kits, clothing, bedding, DNA swabs, text messages, social media accounts, photos, and video. Prosecutors in Bryan often present these items as if they are rock solid. In reality, every one of those exhibits is only as strong as the paperwork that shows who handled it, when, and under what conditions.
An evidence log is the written backbone of what lawyers call the chain of custody. It is supposed to document every transfer of an item from the moment an officer collects it, through storage at a Bryan or Brazos County facility, through any lab analysis, all the way to the courtroom. Judges look at that chain to decide whether the state has done enough to show that the item is what they claim it is and that it has not been altered or mixed up along the way.
Many people assume that once police or a lab have their property, the evidence will automatically come into trial. That is not always true. When entries are missing, when descriptions do not match, or when time gaps appear for no clear reason, the defense can argue that the chain of custody is broken. In serious cases like sex offenses, those arguments can lead to exclusion of key exhibits or, at the very least, give a judge or jury a reason to doubt the prosecution’s story.
Because we have handled many felony cases in Brazos County, we have seen both sides of this issue. From the prosecution side, we know how much pressure there is to keep a case moving even when documentation is not perfect. From the defense side, we have seen how exposing log failures can change plea negotiations or trial outcomes in ways that are very real for our clients.
How Evidence Is Supposed To Be Logged In A Bryan Sex Crime Case
To understand how evidence log errors hurt a case, you first need to see what the ideal process looks like. In a Bryan sex crime investigation, officers typically start by seizing items at a scene, during a search, or after an interview. They are supposed to bag and label each item separately, assign a unique number, and record basic details such as where it was found, what it is, and who seized it.
Once items leave the scene, they usually travel to a law enforcement facility in Bryan or elsewhere in Brazos County. At intake, a property room technician or officer is supposed to log the item into a property or evidence system. That entry should include the date and time received, condition, the officer who turned it in, the technician who received it, and where it will be stored. From there, any movement in or out of the property room, even for a brief inspection, should result in a new log entry.
Lab submissions add more steps. If a sexual assault kit or swab goes to a lab, another entry should document the transfer, including who signed the item out, who transported it, when it arrived at the lab, and who received it. Lab staff then track internal handling, such as when a DNA analyst opens a sealed kit, takes samples, reseals it, and returns it to storage. Finally, when the prosecutor calls for evidence to be brought to a hearing or trial in Bryan, the log should again show who removed it from storage and who had it until it reached the courtroom.
At each of these stages, someone must actually write things down or enter them in a system. That includes arresting officers, property room personnel, detectives, and lab staff. In theory, this should create a continuous, step-by-step record for every exhibit in your case. In practice, especially in busy agencies, some entries are skipped, some are filled out with minimal information, and some are written hours or days after the fact. As a former Assistant District Attorney, Jay Granberry has reviewed many logs from local agencies and knows what the state expects to see when it claims the chain of custody is intact.
Common Evidence Log Errors We See In Bryan Sex Crime Prosecutions
Not all evidence log problems are equal. Some are simple typos, while others raise serious questions about whether an item is the same one the state claims it is. We routinely see certain patterns in Bryan sex crime cases that go well beyond harmless mistakes and move into territory the defense can challenge.
One of the most common issues is missing or incomplete signatures. An officer may turn an item over to the property room, but the receiving technician never signs for it, or their name is illegible. In other cases, the person signing out evidence for court or for lab delivery is not clearly identified. When there is no clear record of who actually handled the exhibit at critical points, it becomes much harder for the state to show that no one tampered with or mixed up that item.
Time gaps are another red flag. For example, an entry might show that clothing was seized at 10 p.m. at a Bryan address, but the next entry does not show it reaching the property room until late the next day, with no explanation. Or a sexual assault kit might be logged in at a hospital, but there is no documented transfer to the lab for several days. Those unexplained gaps invite questions about where the item was, who had access, and what might have happened during that window.
We also see inconsistent descriptions and tag numbers. The same item may be described as a “blue T-shirt” in one entry and a “gray shirt” in another. Tag numbers can be duplicated, transposed, or changed mid-stream, making it unclear which physical item matches which log line. In a sex crime case, where a specific garment or device ties directly to the accusation, these inconsistencies can be critical. Rushed late-night bookings, officers juggling multiple calls, and busy property rooms all contribute to this kind of sloppiness.
Our trial work in more than 130 jury trials has involved cross-examining officers and property technicians about these very issues. We have seen what happens when a witness cannot explain why their signature is missing, why a bag stayed in a patrol car overnight, or why an item’s description changed over time. Judges and jurors notice those explanations, or the lack of them, and they can erode trust in the entire case.
How Chain Of Custody Failures Undermine The Prosecution’s Case
The Texas Rules of Evidence require prosecutors to show that an exhibit is what they claim it is. For physical and digital items, a solid chain of custody is one way they try to satisfy that requirement. When the evidence log is clean and continuous, courts in Bryan generally accept that the item is authentic and unchanged. When it is not, the state’s burden becomes much harder to meet.
A defense lawyer can attack the chain of custody in several ways. One is through a motion to suppress, which asks the court to exclude certain evidence because the state cannot reliably show what happened to it. Another is through objections at trial, when the prosecutor tries to introduce an exhibit and the defense argues that the foundation is not strong enough. In both settings, judges look at the seriousness of the log problems and how likely they are to have affected the evidence.
Minor clerical errors, such as a misspelled name or a slightly off time, may not be enough for exclusion by themselves. Courts often treat those as issues that go to the weight of the evidence, meaning the jury can consider them when deciding how much to trust the exhibit. Serious breaks are different. A sexual assault kit with a multi-day unexplained gap between hospital and lab, or a phone that appears in the property room with no entry showing who seized it or how, can lead a judge to conclude that the item has not been adequately authenticated.
When these failings are clear, the state sometimes tries to repair them by calling extra witnesses. A detective might testify that, even though the log is incomplete, they personally kept the item secure. A lab analyst might claim that their internal records, which were never logged properly in the main system, fill in the blanks. As a former Assistant District Attorney, Jay Granberry knows these tactics because he used to rely on them. Now, on the defense side, we use that insight to press hard on inconsistencies between what the paperwork says and what the witnesses say, forcing the court to confront whether the chain really holds together.
Digital Evidence Logs: Phones, Computers & Online Data
In many Bryan sex crime cases, digital evidence carries as much weight as any physical item. Phones, laptops, tablets, and cloud accounts can contain text messages, photos, browsing history, and location data that prosecutors try to use. The path these devices take is often more complex than a piece of clothing or a paper record, and the logs reflect that complexity.
Digital evidence usually begins with an officer seizing a device and possibly powering it down. A detective or digital forensics unit may then take custody, often at a separate facility or specialized division. The device is supposed to be logged out of general property and into a system that tracks digital evidence, where a forensic examiner creates a forensic image, which is a bit-for-bit copy of the data. Each of these steps should appear somewhere in the chain of custody.
There are several ways this process can break down. Entries might show that a phone left the property room, but there is no record of who actually performed the imaging. Internal logs that track who accessed the forensic workstation, or when an image was created, sometimes never make it into the main evidence log. Devices might be accessed by investigators to take a quick look before formal imaging, without any documentation. All of this makes it easier for the defense to argue that data could have been altered, deleted, or added without clear oversight.
Judges are often particularly sensitive to chain of custody issues with digital evidence because unauthorized access is both easier and harder to trace. If there is no clear record of who plugged a device into what machine and when, questions about tampering become much more credible. We routinely review digital evidence logs, device reports, and related records in serious cases, looking for signs that the state cannot show a clean path from the original device to the data they want to show a jury.
Turning Evidence Log Problems Into Defense Leverage
Spotting log errors is only the first step. The real value comes from turning those errors into concrete leverage that affects whether evidence is admitted, how strong it looks if it does come in, and what options you have for resolving your case. That requires a deliberate, organized approach to every line of the evidence record.
We start by collecting all available documentation, including property logs, lab transfer forms, digital forensics reports, and any internal records the state is willing or ordered to disclose. We compare those against police reports, offense summaries, and witness statements. When something does not line up, for example, a time stamp that conflicts with an officer’s narrative or a missing signature where a transfer clearly happened, we flag it.
Once serious issues are identified, there are several paths forward. We may file a motion to suppress, targeting one or more items for exclusion. In that motion, we lay out the chain of custody step by step, highlighting missing entries, conflicting descriptions, or unexplained gaps. The court can then hold a hearing where the state has to call witnesses and attempt to explain those weaknesses. Even if the judge does not exclude the evidence entirely, the testimony often reveals further problems or concessions that are valuable later.
At trial, we can use evidence log failures to cross-examine officers, property room personnel, and lab analysts. Walking a witness through each missing step, each change in description, and each gap in time can send a strong message to jurors that the state’s case is not as tidy as it appears. That supports broader defenses, such as arguments that evidence could have been contaminated, that someone else had access, or that items may have been mixed up. Our experience in more than 130 jury trial matters here, because we know how judges in Brazos County tend to handle these arguments and how juries react when they see the paper trail unravel.
No two evidence logs look the same, so our strategies are always tailored. Sometimes the best move is to push a single, glaring chain of custody problem hard at a pretrial hearing. Other times, a pattern of smaller issues with multiple exhibits supports a broader narrative about sloppiness and doubt. Our role is to read that pattern and decide where pressure on the chain of custody can do the most good for you.
What You Can Do Now If You Suspect Evidence Log Errors In Your Case
If you are facing a sex crime charge in Bryan, it can be tempting to look at the list of evidence and assume it is all coming in without question. That assumption helps the prosecution, not you. One of the most powerful things you can do is pause and treat that list not as a final verdict but as a set of claims the state still has to prove, starting with how each item was handled.
You should avoid discussing the details of any physical or digital evidence with police, investigators, or other people in your life without legal advice. Casual comments about where an item came from or who used a device can be twisted to support the state’s narrative, even when the underlying logic is weak. Instead, focus on getting a defense lawyer who will obtain and analyze the full evidence records, not just the summaries in a report.
One of the first steps we can take is to request complete property logs, lab records, and digital forensics documentation. Timing matters. Courts often set deadlines for pretrial motions, and chain of custody challenges are strongest when raised before those deadlines pass. Acting quickly gives your defense team more room to investigate, consult with independent experts if needed, and build targeted motions that push the state to answer hard questions about its evidence handling.
At The Law Office of Jay Granberry, our work is rooted in Bryan and Brazos County, so we are familiar with how local agencies typically keep records and where those records tend to fall short. If you are worried about how the evidence in your case was logged, we can review the paper trail and give you a clear view of your options before you make life-changing decisions about pleas or trial.
Talk To A Bryan Defense Lawyer About Evidence Log Errors In Your Case
The strength of a sex crime prosecution in Bryan depends not just on what police seized, but on whether they can show, on paper, that each item was properly handled from start to finish. Incomplete or inconsistent evidence logs are not small technicalities. They are process failures that can open real opportunities to suppress exhibits, challenge the state’s story, and negotiate better outcomes.
Decoding those logs and using them effectively takes experience on both sides of the courtroom. As a former Assistant District Attorney and a Board Certified Criminal Law attorney, Jay Granberry and our team at The Law Office of Jay Granberry know how to read the fine print in Bryan and Brazos County evidence records and how to turn those weaknesses into a focused defense strategy. If you or someone you care about is facing a sex crime allegation, do not assume the evidence is unbeatable until a qualified defense lawyer has reviewed the chain of custody.
Call (979) 378-5480 to discuss your case and have your evidence logs reviewed.