and transfer of the cartridge cases and live round in this case, and the government did not offer the property log as an exhibit or present other evidence suggesting that the ballistics material was documented or tracked in this manner. In ruling that the bállistics material was admissible after hearing Mr. Turner’s testimony, the trial court determined it was sufficient that these items had, at some point, been “stored in a police property office,” because “the presumption here” is that the office “preserve[s] the property.” But the trial court overlooked the government’s failure to present any evidence explaining when the police property office took possession of the ballistics material or how the material got there. Cf. Gilmore v. United States, 742 A.2d 862, 872 (D.C.1999) (<HOLDING>). Effectively, the trial court gave the
holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial holding defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting a defendants chain of custody challenge despite an officers  plainly careless handling of an object recovered from the crime scene and his inability to locate the object for eight months because the officer eventually found the object in his evidence locker and was able to account for its whereabouts during the entire time period