Opinion ID: 173551
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Civil Spoilation Claim

Text: In the event that we were to conclude (as we do) that there was no due process deprivation, Mr. Hood argues in the alternative that the district court should have imposed some other sanction on the government for the spoilation of evidence. He urges us to apply the civil spoilation standard under which a court may impose certain sanctions even in the absence of bad faith. See Henning v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 530 F.3d 1206, 1219-20 & n. 6 (10th Cir.2008) (A spoliation sanction is proper where (1) a party has a duty to preserve evidence because it knew, or should have known, that litigation was imminent, and (2) the adverse party was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Mr. Hood contends that the district court should have imposed sanctions by excluding government evidence concerning the quantity of drugs. . . . Had the court done so, Mr. Hood would likely have been convicted of a lesser-included offense, one that does not carry life imprisonment. Aplt. Opening Br. at 35; see also Aplt. Reply Br. at 9-16. Although Mr. Hood argued in his Reply Brief that this claim was raised before the district court, defense counsel filed a supplemental authority pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), indicating that this Court's discussion of plain-error review in United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279, 1297-98 (10th Cir.2009), may be helpful to the Court's resolution of this issue. Operating with commendable candor, defense counsel then conceded at oral argument that this claim was not raised below. Accordingly, we review it for plain error. See Wardell, 591 F.3d at 1297. Under that rigorous standard, Mr. Hood's argument fails. Id. When applying plain-error review, we may reverse a district court's ruling only if [the defendant] demonstrates (1) error (2) that is plain and (3) that affected [his] substantial rights. If these three elements are met, then we may, in our discretion, correct an error that seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 1297-98 (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if we assume arguendo that it was error for the district court not to apply the civil standard governing the spoilation of evidence and not to sanction the government for such spoilation, Mr. Hood cannot establish that such error is plainthat is, obvious and clear. Id. at 1298. [W]e do not deem an error to be obvious and clear unless it is contrary to current `well-settled law'that is, to the current law of the Supreme Court or the Tenth Circuit. Id. (quoting United States v. Taylor, 514 F.3d 1092, 1100 (10th Cir. 2008)). Mr. Hood has cited to no case applying this civil discovery doctrine to the criminal context and, as a result, he cannot prevail under plain-error review.