In Grucci v. Grucci,1 the majority and dissent wrangled over whether a chain of custody is a predicate element for authenticating a tape recording. The majority, in dismissing the husband’s malicious prosecution action against the wife,2 Christine, held that it is. The dismissal of Michael’s action was anchored exclusively on the jury’s determination that Michael had not met the first element of malicious prosecution, that Christine had not initiated the prosecution.
What the majority dismissed as inconsequential to the outcome, to wit, Michael’s offer of proof, after Michael’s brother, Anthony, had been sworn in, that Anthony, would identify and authenticate the tape as a fair and accurate representation of his conversation with Christine, galvanized the dissent as having “prevented Michael from presenting the most powerful evidence in his case.”
