I guess the prospect of outside meddling will seem sufficiently unlikely that juries will not view it as much of a hindrance. After all, even with a chain of cu

I guess the prospect of outside meddling will seem sufficiently unlikely that juries will not view it as much of a hindrance. After all, even with a chain of custody, there are innumerable opportunities for evidence to be planted. You just have to get one or two people who are willing to lie about things. In the US, the standard is "reasonable doubt," and the faint chance that evidence is tampered with during this unlock process will not likely trip the "reasonable" part of that standard, even if it does add some non-zero amount of doubt.