Opinion ID: 162320
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Youngblood

Text: When the evidence in question is only “potentially useful” to the defendant, as opposed to having exculpatory significance, the defendant must show that the police acted in bad faith when destroying the evidence in order to sustain a due process challenge. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58. Even assuming that the clothes and fingerprints were “potentially useful,” which we doubt, Bloomgren has not demonstrated that the police acted in bad faith. -7- In Bohl, this court identified five factors it found useful in determining whether the government acted in bad faith: (1) the government had been explicitly placed on notice that defendants believed the evidence to be exculpatory; (2) defendant’s assertion that the evidence was potentially exculpatory was supported with objective evidence and was not “merely conclusory;” (3) the government still had the evidence within its control when it received notice from the defendants about the evidence’s exculpatory value; (4) the evidence disposed of was central to the government’s case; and (5) the government offered no innocent explanation for its failure to preserve the evidence. 25 F.3d at 911-12. In this case, Bloomgren has not established any of these factors to support his argument that the police acted in bad faith. We find no clear error in the district court’s denial of Bloomgren’s motion for a new trial on the basis of destruction of evidence. Accordingly, we affirm that decision.