work of other analysts to form his final, independent conclusions did not bestow upon defendant the constitutional right to confront each and every one of those subordinate analysts. See id. (noting that the prosecution is not required to call every person “who laid hands on the evidence”); see also Munoz, 958 N.E.2d at 1176 (“[T]he Constitution has not yet been construed to require the testimony of every person who might conceivably have compromised the reliability of the evidence introduced against a defendant.”). Instead, “gaps in the chain [of custody] normally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.” Melendez-Diaz, 129 S.Ct. at 2532 n. 1 (quoting United States v. Lott, 854 F.2d 244, 250 (7th Cir.1988)); see also State v. Nelson, 982 A.2d 602, 612 (R.I.2009) (<HOLDING>). As a result, questions as to how prior
holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility holding that proof of a continuous chain of custody is relevant only as to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses holding that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence there is therefore much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence the exclusionary rules aside from rules of privilege should not be applicable and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts    goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility