Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00156/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elijah Cooper
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ELIJAH COOPER,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-00156 SI

ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY

HEARING

On July 28, 2009, the Court heard oral argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss the

indictment. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the Court finds

that an evidentiary hearing will be necessary to resolve this motion. 

The government’s failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence violates due process if

the exculpatory value of the evidence was apparent before the evidence was lost or destroyed, the

defendant is unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means, and the

government acted in bad faith. See California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 480 (1984); Arizona v.

Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988). In the Ninth Circuit, the same standard applies to evidence that

has the potential at a suppression hearing to impeach allegations in an affidavit for a search warrant.

United States v. Barton, 995 F.2d 931, 935 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Defendant does not contend that the prosecuting attorney or investigating police officers acted

in bad faith after defendant was arraigned in federal court on March 3. The only issue is whether San

Francisco police officers acted in bad faith when they failed to place an evidentiary hold on defendant’s

Case 3:09-cr-00156-SI Document 24 Filed 07/31/09 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court notes that the difficulties in this case arise from defendant’s transfer from state to

federal jurisdiction. It is especially important for the Court to be vigilant about evidence that was lost

under these circumstances.

2

car after his arrest. An evidentiary hearing would help the Court resolve this question.1 Specifically,

the Court wishes to hear oral testimony from Officer Ajay Singh, who wrote “no holds” on the tow

ticket for defendant’s car. See Singh Decl., ex. B. The parties should contact the courtroom deputy

to schedule a mutually convenient time for the evidentiary hearing during the week of August 3,

2009. If the parties wish other witnesses to testify at the evidentiary hearing, they may raise this issue

with the Court at the July 31 status conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00156-SI Document 24 Filed 07/31/09 Page 2 of 2