2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-15-2008 

# U SA v . C hri s t i an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4636

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . C hr i s t i an" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 112. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/112NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 05- 4636

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. HE CT OR CH RI S T I AN, A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A pp eal from t he D i stri ctC ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s

( D . C . N o. 02- cr - 160) D i s t r i ctJ udge: J ames T. G i l es

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber9, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , J O R D A N a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ,

Fi l ed: D ece m ber15, 2008

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . H ect orC hr i s t i an ( “C hr i s t i an”) appea l s fr om a convi ct i on on fi r earm char ges for vi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) ; 18 U . S. C . § 922( k) ; and 14 V . I . C . A . § 2253( a) , cl ai m i ng the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed b yno tdis m i ssi ng the indi ct m ent because t he p oli ce l ost p o ten tiallye x c u lp a to ryf in g e rp rin t ev id e n c e . H e a lleg e s th a t th e p o lice a c ted in b a d f a ith2

a n d in v io latio n o f

h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts. B e c a u se C h ristia n h a s n o t m e t h is b u rd e n to demonstr at e thatt he pol i ce a ct ed i n bad fa i t h, hi s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e notvi ol at ed, a n d w e w ill a f

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n . I. O n M ay14, 2001, pol i ce of fi cer s w er e i nves t i gat i ng cr i m i nal act i vi t yi n w hi ch C h ri sti an w as a su sp ec t and , b ych an ce , o b serv ed C h ri sti an d ri v ing an au tom o b il e. A w are thathe di d nothave a l i cens e, t heyatt empt ed t o pul l hi m over , atw hi ch poi ntC hr i s t i an acc el er at ed thr ough C hr i s t i ans t ed Tow n and r an a s t op s i gn. E ventual l y , he aba ndoned hi s carand the pur s ui tcont i nued on foot . D ur i ng the footchas e, one of the off i cer s s aw C hr i s t i an appr oach a not herm an, E nr i que Fi guer oa, and gi ve hi m a handgun. T he pol i ce i m m edi at el yarr es t ed Fi guer oa and s ei zed the gun fr om hi s pocket . Fi guer oa s i gned a w ri tte n s ta te m e n t in d ic a tin g th a t C h ri s tia n g a v e h im th e g u n a n d to ld h im to h o ld it. C hr i s t i an w as i ndi ct ed on the fi r earm s char ges i n 2001. O n t he eve of tr i al , the governm entdi s cl os ed thati thad l at entfi ngerpr i nt s thathad bee n r emoved fr om the m agaz i ne of the gun. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed C hr i s t i an’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the i nd i ct m ent w i t ho ut pr ej ud i ce bec ause t he g ov ernm ent had fail ed to i nfo rm the d efen se th a t late n t f

in g e rp rin ts e x iste d . A n in ter n a l g o v e rn m e n t in v e stig a tio n re v e a led th a t a fi ngerpr i ntt echni ci an, T hom as J acks on, had col l ect ed pr i nt s fr om the magazi ne of the gun, att ache d t he l at entpr i ntcar ds t o hi s r epor t , and s ubm i t t ed both t he r epor tand the pr i ntcar ds t o a s upervi s or , J onathan H i t es m an. H i t es m an s ai d t he r epor tl acke d3

i nform at i on r equi r ed bydepart m entr egul at i ons and s enti tback t o J acks on t o be corr ect ed. H i t es m an l at ers t at ed thathe exa m i ned the fi ngerpr i nt s and bel i eved thatt hey c o n tain e d n o su itab le r id g e s f o r c o m p a riso n . H e a lso sa id Ja c k so n re su b m itt e d th e re p o rt, b u t w ith o u t th e la te n t p ri n t c a rd s , w h ic h w e re n e v e r f o u n d . O n r e- pr os ecut i on, t he def ens e aga i n m oved t o di s m i s s on t he bas i s of the mi s s i ng fi ngerpr i ntevi dence , butt he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on, concl udi ng that“the governm enthas m ade r eas onabl e ef for t s t o l ocat e the l at entfi ngerpr i ntcar ds ” and that th e re w a s “ a la c k o f

b a d f a ith re g a rd in g th e lo s s o f th e la te n t p ri n ts .” (A -7 9 .) C hr i s t i an w a s f o u n d g u ilty o n a ll c h a rg e s . II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att erpur s uantt o 48 U . S. C . §1612( a) a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 2 3 1 . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. §1 29 1. W e “revi ew t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s l egal conclusi on s de novo and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. R am os , 2 7 F .3 d 6 5 , 6 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). I n s i tuat i ons w her e a de fenda ntcl ai m s thatthe governm entdes t r oy ed evi dence t hat m igh t hav e p rov ed ex cu lpato ry , the d ef en d an t has the b u rde n o f p rov ing the g o v ern m en t’ s b a d f a ith in o rd e ri n g o r p e rm ittin g th e lo s s o r d e s tru c tio n o f th e e v id e n c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. D eaner , 1 F. 3d 192, 200 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( ci t i ng A r iz ona v. Y oungbl ood , 488 U . S. 51, 58 (1 9 8 8 )) . A b s e n t a s h o w in g o f b a d f a ith th e re is n o d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n . D eaner , 1 F. 3d at 20 0 (cit ati o n s o m itted). “The pr es ence orabs ence of bad f ai t h bythe pol i ce f

or4

purpos es of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e mustnece s s ar i l yturn on the pol i ce’ s know l edge of the exc ul pat or yval ue of the evi dence atthe t i m e i tw as l os tordes t r oy ed. ” G r i f f i n v. S p ra tt , 969 F. 2d 16, 20 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng Y oungbl ood , 4 8 8 U .S . a t 5 1 n .* )) . N e g lig e n t c o n d u c t b yp o lic e o f f ic e rs in h a n d lin g e v id e n c e d o e s n o t d e m o n s tr a te b a d f a ith . Y oungbl ood , 4 8 8 U .S . at 5 8 ; D eaner , 1 F .3 d a t 2 0 1 . C hr i s t i an al l eges t hatt he l os s of evi dence demonstr at es bad fa i t h bythe pol i ce b e c a u se O f

f ice r Ja c k so n f

a iled to f o llo w a p p ro p ria te p ro c e d u re in se n d in g th e f in g e rp rin ts to h is sup erior, O ff

icer H it esm an , an d that, co n seq u en tl y , the f ing erp ri n t card s w ere s om ehow l os t . A bs ents om e pr oof of i l l - w i l l , a fa i l ur e t o fol l ow pr ocedur e i s i ns uffi ci ent to s u p p o rt a f

in d in g o f g o v e rn m e n t b a d f

a ith . Y oungbl ood , 4 8 8 U .S . at 5 8 ; D eaner , 1 F. 3d at201. T her e i s no evi dence her e t o s ugges tthatthe pol i ce purpos el ym i s pl ace d or d estroy ed the e v iden ce o r th at an ym ali ciou s inten t acc o m p an ied O ff icer Jac k so n ’s fa il u re to f o llo w p ro c e d u re . R am os , 2 7 F .3 d a t 7 2 (h o ld in g th a t th e d e stru c tio n o f e v id e n c e in v iolati o n o f e stab li sh ed rules a n d p o li cyd o es n o t w arran t per se a f ind ing o f b ad fa ith ); D eaner , 1 F .3 d a t 2 0 0 -0 1 (h o ld in g th a t f a ilu re to f

o llo w p ro c e d u re a n d n e g lig e n c e in p re s e rv a tio n o f

e v id e n c e , w ith o u t m o re , d o e s n o t a m o u n t to b a d f a ith ). In th e p re s e n t c a s e , C h ri s tia n h a s n o t m e t h is b u rd e n to d e m o n s tr a te b a d f a ith . T her e i s no s ugges t i on i n t he evi dence thatthe pol i ce be l i eved the mi s s i ng l at entpr i nt car ds w oul d have e xcul pat ed C hr i s t i an; the l os s of the pr i ntcar ds appea r s t o have be en n o th in g m o re th a n a n u n f o rt u n a te b u t in n o c e n t m is ta k e . G r i f f i n, 969 F. 2d at20 ( ci t at i onsE ven i f w e ac cept ed C hr i s t i an’ s ar gum entthatthe fi ngerpr i nt s bel onged t o another 1 per s on, s uch evi dence m ayhave be en hel pful t o C hr i s t i an butdoes pr ove he di d not p o s s e s s th e g u n . T h e to ta lity o f th e e v id e n c e o v e rw h e lm in g ly w e ig h s a g a in s t h im .

5 o m itted) (ex p lai n ing that the p rese n ce o r ab sen ce o f b ad fa ith o ri g inates f rom the p o li ce ’s k n o w led g e o f

th e e x c u lp a to ryn a tu re o f th e e v id e n c e a t th e tim e it w a s d e stro y e d ); U ni t ed Stat es v. St eve ns , 935 F. 2d 1380, 1388 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( hol di ng no due pr oces s vi ol at i on w her e governm entdi d notknow w hetherl os tD N A evi dence w oul d i ncul pat e or ex cu lpate the d ef

en d an t) . 1 III . I n thi s cas e, fai l ur e t o fol l ow a governm entpr ocedur e does notbyi t s el f i m pl ybad fai th. A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l affirm t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of the m oti on t o d i sm i ss.