Opinion ID: 162320
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trombetta

Text: Bloomgren claims that the police failed to collect and preserve exculpatory evidence during its search of the Ranch, such as clothing, documents, and personal effects belonging to others, which would demonstrate that others stayed -5- at the Ranch. He also claims that fingerprints were possibly damaged or destroyed when a rifle was allegedly mishandled, and that those prints could have demonstrated that others had access to the rifle. For police destruction of evidence to rise to the level of affecting a defendant’s Due Process rights under California v. Trombetta, the evidence “must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.” 467 U.S. at 489. Bloomgren has not demonstrated that the evidence had apparent exculpatory value. Further, the fact that comparable evidence was presented at trial demonstrates that Bloomgren had other reasonable means of obtaining the evidence. Taking the fingerprint evidence first, Appellant offers mere speculation about what fingerprint testing would have shown. There was no reason for the police to believe that this fingerprint evidence would “play a significant role in [Bloomgren’s] defense.” Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 488. Bloomgren never requested fingerprint testing of the rifle. At trial, he admitted that he knew of the rifle (ROA Vol. 5 at 60), and his son’s testimony placed the rifle in his hands. (ROA Vol. 10 at 85.) -6- Comparable evidence was presented at trial to show that others had access to the Ranch. The housekeeper testified that small children and individuals with clothing sizes different than that of Bloomgren lived in the house. Photographs of the bathroom where the drugs, firearms, and safe containing Bloomgren’s personal documents were located, showed both men’s and women’s toiletries. These photos were admitted into evidence. A police officer testified at trial that he found both men’s and women’s clothing in the house. The police did not destroy these items; they simply did not seize them. The presentation of this evidence means that the failure to collect simply was not prejudicial. Because Bloomgren has not demonstrated that the evidence in question had apparent exculpatory value, and even if he had, because comparable evidence was presented at trial, he has not established a violation of Trombetta.