NCJ Number
31802
Journal
Columbia Law Review Volume: 75 Issue: 7 Dated: (NOVEMBER 1975) Pages: 13551380
Date Published
1975
Length
26 pages
Annotation
INVESTIGATION OF THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF PROSECUTION'S DUTY TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE WHICH EXAMINES THE POLICIES AND COMPETING DOCTRINES SUPPORTING OR LIMITING A DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT TESTING OF EVIDENCE.
Abstract
THE USE OF THE 'MATERIALITY OF EVIDENCE' AND 'GOOD FAITH/ BAD FAITH' TESTS OF DUE PROCESS (USED IN NOTES DESTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE SUPPRESSION CASES) IN DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE CASES IS CONSIDERED AND FOUND TO BE INADEQUATE. ALTERNATIVE DUE PROCESS MODELS ARE THEN CONSIDERED - THE PROMULGATION OF SYSTEMATIC ROLES FOR THE PRESERVATION OF 'ALL' DISCOVERABLE EVIDENCE (UNITED STATES V. BRYANT, 1971), AND REQUIRING THAT EVIDENCE, FROM A PARTICULAR TEST, FAVORABLE TO THE ISSUE OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE BE PRESERVED AND DISCLOSED (PEOPLE V. HITCH, 1974). THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT WHILE HITCH IS WELL SUITED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILED DIRECTIONS IN SPECIFIC, RECURRENT PROBLEMS, CASES, OR AREAS, IT IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKABLE GENERAL GUIDELINES GOVERNING EVIDENCE PRESERVATION IN NON RECURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR THESE CASES, ADHERENCE TO THE PROCEDURE SUGGESTED IN LIMITED STATES V. HEIDEN (1974) IS RECOMMENDED. IN HEIDEN, THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PETITION THE COURT AND NOTIFY THE DEFENSE OF ITS INTENTIONS BEFORE ANY DISPOSITION, DESTRUCTION, OR TESTING OF EVIDENCE OCCURS. IN THIS WAY, THE DEFENDANT WOULD BE GIVEN TIME TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS OF ACCESS FOR TESTING AND EVALUATION.