Opinion ID: 4211658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Preserve Rogoway’s Lineup Card

Text: In claim 13 of his federal habeas petition, Sanders contends that the prosecution failed to preserve Tami Rogoway’s lineup card in bad faith. Sanders bases this argument on Rogoway’s testimony at Sanders’s preliminary hearing that she did not pick anyone at the lineup, and the loss of her lineup card sometime after Freeman’s preliminary hearing. The clearly established Supreme Court precedent governing this claim is California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984), and Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988). Under Trombetta, the government’s failure to preserve evidence violates a defendant’s due process rights if the unavailable evidence “possess[ed] an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and [is] of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.” 467 U.S. at 489. In Youngblood, the Supreme Court held that “unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part 62 SANDERS V. CULLEN of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” 488 U.S. at 58. “Youngblood’s bad faith requirement dovetails with the first part of the Trombetta test: that the exculpatory value of the evidence be apparent before its destruction.” United States v. Cooper, 983 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1993). “The presence or absence of bad faith turns on the government’s knowledge of the apparent exculpatory value of the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed.” Id. The district court ruled that this claim was not unreasonably denied because Sanders failed to show Rogoway’s lineup card was lost in bad faith. As discussed, the state court held a California Evidence Code section 402 hearing regarding the loss of Rogoway’s lineup card. Officer Wesselink and Detective Jacques testified that they saw the card after the lineup, and that it reflected that Rogoway selected Sanders. From the card, Detective Jacques recorded Rogoway’s selection in the police log. Rogoway similarly testified at the 402 hearing and at trial that she attended the lineup and selected Sanders. Based on this testimony, the state court could have reasonably concluded: (1) that Sanders did not show the lineup card possessed an exculpatory value before it was lost; and (2) that Sanders was able to obtain comparable evidence of what the card indicated from witness testimony and the police log. The state court reasonably denied Sanders’s claim that the prosecution failed to preserve Rogoway’s lineup card in bad faith, and we affirm the district court’s ruling on this claim. SANDERS V. CULLEN 63