Spoliation of Evidence

 TROMBETTA MOTIONS: Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Explains What Can Happen When the Police or Prosecution Fail to Preserve Evidence

When evidence which would help a defendant (or may help a defendant) it is called "exculpatory" evidence.  Exculpatory evidence need not completely exonerate the accused, but if it tends to show innocence - even a little bit - this is evidence that a defendant would want to present.  Unfortunately, in most cases, the police and prosecution get a head start when in comes to investigating crimes and gathering evidence.  By the time a defendant is made aware of an investigation, it is usually more difficult to investigate and gather evidence.  People forget, things get lost, videos get deleted, and more.  For this same reasons, we have previously addressed the Constitutional implications of delayed prosecutions, whereby the police and/or prosecution's long wait to initiate proceedings can compromise a defendant's ability to property prepare a defense.

NOTE:  IN CALIFORNIA, THE PROCESS BY WHICH A DEFENDANT RAISES A SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE ISSUE IS GENERALLY CALLED A TROMBETTA MOTION.  THEREIN, THE DEFENDANT WILL ARGUE THAT CERTAIN EVIDENCE EXISTED, WOULD HAVE HELPED THE DEFENDANT, AND WAS MALICIOUSLY MISHANDLED BY THE GOVERNMENT SUCH THAT IT CAN NO LONGER BE USED IN PREPARATION OF A DEFENSE.

Why there is the Prosecution's Duty To Preserve Evidence
Since a criminal case involves very high stakes (liberty), a defendant has a right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.  Among other things, this right requires the prosecution to preserve certain evidence obtained during its investigation of the case.  During a process known as discovery, it must provide the defendant with the evidence that it will use in presenting its case.  The prosecution also must provide the defendant with exculpatory evidence that could support a defense. This is because the prosecutor’s duty is to obtain justice rather than simply obtaining a conviction.

The evidence that must be preserved is limited to evidence that would be both material and exculpatory. Evidence is material if it is relevant to an important issue in the case, and evidence is exculpatory if it supports a defense or tends to show that the defendant is not guilty of the crime.  Again, it is not necessary that the evidence would conclusively absolve the accused and prove their innocence, but the evidence must have some tendency to show a problem with the government's case or favor the defendant's innocence.

Which Agencies are Responsible for Preserving Evidence?
A private person or entity does not have an obligation to preserve evidence, unless they were formally working for or with a law enforcement agency.  However, most government agencies have a responsibility to preserve evidence.  This includes police officers, detectives, prosecutors, investigators working for the prosecutor’s office, administrative staff, and more.  The duty to preserve evidence starts as soon as the evidence is obtained and continues after a conviction to cover any exculpatory evidence that might assist a defendant in an appeal or other post-conviction relief.

Repercussions of failure to Preserve Evidence
A court will not sanction the prosecution on its own if the prosecution fails to preserve evidence.  A defendant or their attorney will need to raise the issue.  They will need to show that the government acted in bad faith in violating the duty to preserve evidence, and they also need to show that the evidence was material and exculpatory, such that their right to a fair trial was violated.  If the defendant succeeds, the court might dismiss the case, suppress related evidence or limit testimony about it.  If the issue does not arise until after a conviction, an appellate court might overturn the conviction and order a new trial.

What must the defense show to get a favorable outcome?
A judge has wide latitude in determining whether a defendant was actually prejudiced by the State’s failure to preserve evidence. If a judge finds that the State failed to preserve evidence but that the defendant would not have been affected by the government’s mistake, then a defendant is not entitled to relief. But if the defense shows that no other available evidence could have served the same purpose, the defense has a good chance at prevailing.

Identifying instances of government mishandling of evidence takes great skill an experience.  If a poor investigation, police or prosecution misconduct, or unreasonable delay has resulted in lost evidence, you will need an aggressive criminal defense attorney on your side to fight for you.  The very nature of this problem - the lost evidence - makes for an uphill battle.  Proving that the evidence existed, that it would have helped the defendant, and that it was lost due to government agents acting in bad faith are difficult hurdles to overcome.  In other words, while the Constitution provides defendants with a right to a fair trial, actually asserting that right in the context of a Trombetta motion can be quite difficult.

RELATED ARTICLES:
PROSECUTOR MISCONDUCT
ENFORCING BRADY VIOLATIONS
MOTIONS THAT HELP YOU BEAT YOUR CASE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS AND YOUR CELL PHONE
NEW TRIAL MOTIONS

Useful LA Criminal Defense Resources:
LA Inmate Locator 
LA Superior Court  
LAPD Online 
LA County Law Library
LA Felony Bail Schedule
LA Misdemeanor Bail Schedule