Fourteenth Amendment: Police Failure To Preserve Evidence and Erosion of the Due Process Right to a Fair Trial

• NCJ Number: 123632
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 80 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1990) Pages: 1256-1280
• Author(s): S M Bernstein
• Date Published: 1990
• Length: 25 pages
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This analysis of the United States Supreme Court's 1988 decision in a case involving the police's failure to preserve potentially useful evidence concludes that the Court's decision narrowed the defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and is not supported by previous case law.

Abstract

In Arizona v. Youngblood, the Court held that unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, the failure to preserve evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law. However, this bad faith requirement hinders the defendant's access to critical evidence and thereby prevents the presentation of a complete defense. In addition, prior judicial decisions require courts to analyze the constitutional relevance of withheld, lost, destroyed, or unpreserved evidence for the determination of due process violations, regardless of the good or bad faith of the police or the government. Furthermore, the bad faith standard is ambiguous. It is inappropriate to place greater emphasis on limiting the obligations of the police than on protecting the defendant's right to a fair trial. Therefore, the materiality of the evidence is the most acceptable standard by which to judge the government's failure to preserve evidence for the defendant. 180 footnotes.