Source: https://prosechicago.wordpress.com/2008/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:30:43+00:00

Document:
The duties to disclose and preserve impeachment/exculpatory evidence are grounded in the due process right to a fair trial. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678 (1985); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 at 87 (1963) . Thus, the withholding or destruction of evidence violates a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights only if, as a result of the withholding or destruction of evidence the criminal defendant is denied a fair trial. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 678.
In People v. Walker, 257 Ill.App.3d 332, 628 N.E.2d 971 (1st Dist. 3d Div.
In People v. Madison, 264 Ill.App. 481, 637 N.E.2d 1074 (1st Dist., 4th Div.
In Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 102 L. Ed. 2d 281, 109 S. Ct. 333 (1988), the court held that police did not deny the defendant due process by inadvertently destroying evidence that might have aided him.
discussed bad faith and its relationship to destruction of evidence and the issue of whether the evidence had only speculative value or was essential to the case.
“[I]n Newberry, the police seized what appeared to be cocaine from the defendant. After the substance tested negative, the defendant was charged with possessing a look-alike substance. However, a second drug test was positive. The State then indicted the defendant for possessing cocaine and several closely related offenses and dismissed the look-alike substance charge. After the defendant filed a general discovery request, he learned that the police had mistakenly destroyed the alleged cocaine. On the defendant’s motion, the trial court dismissed the indictments. Newberry, 166 Ill. 2d at 312-13.
The trial court in Camp (id.) suggested that when the destroyed evidence is not essential or outcome determinative, the court has the power to impose lesser sanctions than dismissal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.