Document: 488 U.S. 51 109 S.Ct. 333 102 L.Ed.2d 281 ARIZONA, Petitioner,v.Larry YOUNGBLOOD. No. 86-1904. Argued Oct. 11, 1988. Decided Nov. 29, Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1989. See 1051, 885. Syllabus The victim, a 10-year-old boy, was molested and sodomized by middle-aged man for 11/2 hours. After the assault, boy taken to hospital where physician used swab from "sexual assault kit" collect semen samples boy's rectum. police also collected clothing, which they failed refrigerate. A criminologist later performed some tests on rectal but he unable obtain information about identity of assailant. At trial, expert witnesses testified that respondent might have been completely exonerated timely performance properly preserved samples. Respondent convicted child molestation, sexual kidnapping in an Arizona state court. Court Appeals reversed conviction ground State had breached constitutional duty preserve victim's body clothing. Held: Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment did not require even though useful respondent. Unless criminal defendant can show bad faith part police, failure potentially evidence does constitute denial due process law. Here, police's refrigerate clothing perform at worst be described as negligent. None this concealed evidence—such it was—was made available respondent's expert, who declined any noted its opinion—and agrees—that there no suggestion police. Moreover, violated because newer test do particular tests. Pp. 55-59. 153 Ariz. 50, 734 P.2d 592, reversed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed concurring judgment, post, p. 59. BLACKMUN, dissenting opinion, BRENNAN MARSHALL, joined, 61. John R. Gustafson, Tucson, Ariz., petitioner. Daniel F. Davis, Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 Larry Youngblood Pima County, Arizona, jury kidnaping. his 592 (1986). We granted certiorari consider extent requires evidentiary material defendant. 2 On October 1983, David L., attended church service with mother. left 9:30 p.m., went carnival behind church, abducted medium height weight. assailant drove secluded area near ravine him. He then took unidentified, sparsely furnished house four times. Afterwards, tied up while outside start car. Once started car, albeit difficulty, returned again boy. sent bathroom wash before him carnival. threatened kill if told anyone attack. entire ordeal lasted 3 way home, mother Kino Hospital. hospital, treated injuries. Tucson Police Department provided such kits all hospitals County use cases. Under standard procedure, victim kit evidence. included paper saliva samples, tube obtaining blood sample, microscopic slides making smears, set Q-Tip-like swabs, medical examination report. rectum mouth. slide doctor obtained saliva, blood, hair. examine time. placed secure refrigerator station. underwear T-shirt. This refrigerated or frozen. 4 Nine days after attack, November 7, asked pick out photographic lineup. identified located until weeks later; arrested December 9, 1983. 5 8, Edward Heller, criminologist, examined kit. followed department determine whether contact occurred. determined occurred, other tests, although back refrigerator. identify group substances were routinely conducted during initial only half cases event. 6 indicted charges moved compel provide comparison gathered through kit, trial court denied motion sufficiently large sample make valid comparison. prosecutor State's ABO attempt ascertain type detect sample. 7 In January 1985, first found one stain another rear tried both stains using technique, unsuccessful. P-30 protein molecule stains, indicated small quantity present clothing; inconclusive assailant's identity. just begun test, slightly more than crime laboratories country. 8 Respondent's principal defense erred identifying perpetrator crime. connection, witness what shown shortly gathered, refrigerated. instructed destroyed lost evidence, "infer true fact is against interest." 10 Tr. 90. 9 guilty charged, judgment conviction. It stated " 'when issue permit destruction could eliminate perpetrator, loss process.' 54, P.2d, 596, quoting v. Escalante, 55, 61, 597, 603 (App.1986). concluded basis testimony produced results reached conclusion "not imply State." 596. Supreme petition review, we certiorari. 485 903, 108 1072, 99 232 (1988). now reverse. Decision case us "what loosely called constitutionally guaranteed access evidence." United States Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 858, 867, 3440, 3446, 73 1193 (1982). Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 215 (1963), held "the suppression prosecution favorable accused upon request violates either guilt punishment, irrespective good prosecution." Id., 87, S.Ct., 1196. Agurs, 427 97, 96 2392, 49 342 (1976), disclose description requests it, same time rejected notion "prosecutor has deliver file counsel." 111, 2401; see Moore Illinois, 408 786, 795, 92 2562, 2568, 33 706 (1972) ("We know requirement complete detailed accounting investigatory work case"). 11 There question complied Agurs here. disclosed relevant reports respondent, contained existence hospital. laboratory notes prepared 12 If prevail federal grounds, then, must over above imposed Agurs. Our most recent decision law, California Trombetta, 467 479, 104 2528, 81 413 (1984), arose drunk-driving introduced indicating concentration alcohol two motorists. defendants sought suppress breath test. argument several reasons: first, officers here acting 'good accord their normal practice,' id., 488, 2533, Killian States, 368 231, 242, 82 302, 308, 256 (1961); second, light procedures actually chances would exculpated slim, U.S., 489, 2534; and, third, inaccuracy "alternative means demonstrating innocence." 490, 2534. case, likelihood materials enabled exonerate himself appears greater here, unlike own chief.* 13 decisions related areas stressed importance purposes Government when claim based attributable Government. Marion, 404 307, 455, 30 468 (1971), said "[n]o actual prejudice conduct alleged proved, showing intentionally delayed gain tactical advantage appellees harass them." 325, 466; Lovasco, 431 783, 790, 97 2044, 2048, 52 752 (1977). Similarly, supra, considered Government's deportation illegal aliens process. prompt justified "upon Executive's good-faith determination possess 872, 3449. 14 Amendment, interpreted Brady, makes irrelevant fails exculpatory But think different result deal subjected Part reason difference treatment observation 486, 2532, "[w]henever permanently lost, courts face treacherous task divining import whose contents are unknown very often, disputed." stems our unwillingness read "fundamental fairness" Clause, Lisenba California, 314 219, 236, 62 280, 289, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941), imposing undifferentiated absolute retain conceivable significance prosecution. requiring limits obligation reasonable bounds confines class interests justice clearly i.e., those themselves indicate form exonerating therefore hold unless 15 night crime; into custody six later. agree—that follows, therefore, said, violation Clause. 16 referred somewhat obliquely "inability quantitatively test" certain meant statement fail tool, strongly disagree. situation drunken driving rests alone; free argue finder breathalyzer exculpatory, 17 reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 18 Reversed. 19 judgment. 20 Three factors critical my evaluation case. First, thus negligently valuable least great interest preserving person Indeed, likely police—who still conducting investigation—and prosecutor—who bear burden establishing beyond doubt—than this, without prophylactic sanction dismissal indictment, strong incentive 21 Second, possible revealed information, unlikely prejudiced omission. examining her summation, counsel impressed well App. Pet. Cert. C21-C38, C42-C45; 183-202, 207-208; 58-61, 69-70. More significantly, judge jury: "If you find . allowed content quality issue, may infer As result, uncertainty proved turned defendant's advantage. 22 Third, juror chose draw permissive inference proper preservation demonstrated suggests "immaterial." clear "[t]he materiality reflect overriding concern finding guilt," turn (or preserve) "must evaluated context record." 112, 2401, (1976) (footnotes omitted); (1984) (duty limited expected play significant role suspect's defense"). declining counsel's court's invitations inference, jurors effect that, view, so overwhelming highly improbable exculpatory. [were] extremely low [breath] exculpatory." already calculus understanding trial. Presumably, involving closer innocence, ready 23 With these mind, I concur Court's not, however, join announces proposition law much broader necessary decide states "unless law." Ante, 58. prove acted nonetheless fundamentally unfair. This, Accordingly, 24 whom MARSHALL join, dissenting. 25 Constitution fair merely "good faith" try nothing ineptitude, opportunity full defense. That deprived right reversing Appeals, misreads prior unduly restricts protections An demonstrates deteriorate "constitutionally material," absence significantly dissent. 26 * minimal reference past seems me less analysis, claimed responsibility "to defendant." Ibid. majority violation, action affirmatively aimed cheating undoubtedly Constitution. suggest cannot correct. Regardless intent lack thereof, receiving unfair constitutes deprivation 27 pronouncement evidence," (1982), (1984). Trombetta addressed demands behalf defendants." 481, 2530. writing impression, general standards applied developed number cases, including (1976).1 Those government actions deny order violate 28 majority, ante, ruled explain principle underlying earlier e.g., Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 55 340, 79 791 (1935) (violation presented perjured testimony), punishment society misdeeds avoidance accused." "casts architect proceeding comport justice, though, 'the guile.' 88, 1197 (quoting lower opinion). 29 relied 107, 2399, required "clearly supportive innocence" request. prosecutor's dimension "omission trial," 108, explained: "Nor believe measured moral culpability, willfulness, prosecutor. probative innocence file, should presumed recognize overlooked it. error, character prosecutor." 110, 2400 (footnote omitted).2 31 plain mind determinative. Rather, focus guilt." 2401.3 32 holdings interfering essential violation. Nor create requirement. § discussion focused "that afforded meaningful defense," 485, delivery "protect[s] innocent erroneous ensur[es] integrity system." Although language includes quotation words "in appear, words, reasons, them majority. antecedent fuller phrase practice." 2533. source (1961), practice discarding investigators' notes, compile received process.4 compliance usual manifest. claimed. procedure ignore deterioration important generally treat negligent reckless manner. squared careful steps sexual-assault importantly, end analysis. according prefaced primary inquiry, centers "constitutional materiality" itself. intimates alone measure.5 34 establish species points out, sense overturn malicious withholds mistakenly believes material, help 2400. way, point usefulness, simply inept rather malicious. 35 doubt "bad creates bright-line rule Apart inherent difficulty faith, line between anything bright, majority's formulation questions answers. What purposes? Does malice, recklessness, deliberate maintaining sufficient? work" minimum diligence, will lazy officer, walk few extra refrigerator, faith? While leaves day, quick embrace brightened line; fewer defendants. II 36 inquiry eliminates setting say "evidentiary defendant," 57, is, process, material. dispositive, rendered 37 possesses "an value apparent destroyed," "of nature comparable reasonably means." neither met. note facts differed such, basic controlling, finely tuned. 38 suspected drunk drivers discarded tested Intoxilyzer, accurate reliable device measuring blood-alcohol levels. 481-482, reasoned posttest proving low, observed able attack reliability presenting ways Intoxilyzer malfunctioned. differs conclusive distinct possibility unrebutted results. consequence, impeachment (i.e., incorrect), exoneration. specific directly controlling. 39 certainty, precisely deteriorate. things came tested, technology local department, assailant, nonsecreter, someone secrete blood-type "marker" fluids, semen. important. rape questioned always significant. Hilliard Spalding, 719 F.2d 1443, 1446-1447 (CA9 1983); People Nation, Cal.3d 169, 176-177, 161 Cal.Rptr. 299, 302-304, 604 1054-1055 (1980). Fourth, officer recognized refrigeration. Fifth, done swab. suggested equally too obtained. And, sixth, secreter. 40 clear. defendant, courts, certainty evidence: "interfere[d] accused's ability government's impossible fulfill." F.2d, 1446. Good intolerable, circumstances effective alternative otherwise made. 41 difficulties situation.6 societal seeing criminals punished rightly indictments dismissed unavailability prevents substance known, analysis laid adequate. like one, something more. Rather allow ineptitude saddle burden, going contention determining To put succinctly, physical potential, reveal immutable characteristics criminal, hence exculpate charged 42 under concerns relevant, satisfied, come Samples fingerprints, hair tissue implicate defendants, suspects. preserved. For example, found, unclear dictates (although principles sound investigation certainly so). presumption 43 corollary, particularly applicable embody characteristic testing methods. So, fingerprint compared fingerprints yield result; fluid contains markers, develops, potential increase. Current genetic measures, frequently civil paternity suits, extraordinarily precise. Clark Jeter, 486 456, 465, 1910, 1916, 100 465 types indisputable, unreasonable. 44 next obviously indicates independently Requiring piece probably misconduct. Focusing solves problem. technology, equivalent cumulative collateral, cf. 113-114, 2402-2403, guilt. 45 take account burdens places Law enforcement option, implicit performing it.7 suspect time, inform plans discard When informed shift flexibility unusually dangerous difficult store. III 46 Applying conclude correct overturning worn appeals larger, contaminated, 596 47 Because methods genuine implicating victim.8 eyewitness, seized examined, wrecking company, dismantled having viewed check car confirm refute elements testimony.9 48 question, sufficient testing. tending physically refrigeration available, indicates, items tax storage space. Considered remains "a fundamental far worse convict let go free." re Winship, 397 358, 372, 90 1068, 1076, (1970) (concurring conclusive, remote. State, consequently improperly scope ignores futile pursuit rule,10 597 (question open)) improper animus. provides guidance how determined, egregious be, raise colorable faith. remand overall marred overturned. (1986), holding (emphasis added). reasoning Escalante instant mark sharp departure respects. speaks "apparent." enough satisfy Trombetta. "before destroyed." knew avenue led directions. presence necessarily knowledge destroyed. Cf. Napue 360 264, 269, 1173, 1177, 1217 (1959). cases: 1117 (1959), falsely promised return testifying. knowing fall, invalid 'not guile desire impact same, preventing, did, real termed fair.' 270, Savvides, N.Y.2d 554, 557, 154 N.Y.S.2d 885, 886-888, 136 N.E.2d 853, 854-855 (1956). Giglio 405 150, 763, (1972), promise nonprosecution testified, "whether nondisclosure negligence design, 154, 766. And Roviaro 353 53, 77 623, 639 (1957), confidential informant. considering harm suffered new discovered neutral 'servant twofold aim shall escape suffer.' Berger 295 78, 629, 633, 1314 (1935). Holding higher necessary, lest "special serve cause justice" lost. 2401. support deported possessed These deportations malice negligence, carried pursuant immigration policy. 863-866, 3444-3446. Consideration motive step inquiry. plausible showing" defense." 873, meet burden. try. Killian, witnesses' statements, prepare receipts signed, practice. 308. Had agents destroy destroyed, decides today, presented. (1977), concerned claims preindictment delay caused speculative statutes limitations, protection defendants' interests. shaky foundation radical today. (1984): "The doctrinal development reflects, part, developing rules prosecutorial neglect oversight. Whenever say, nor believe, impossible. Respect rights need discuss "cutting edge" technology. highlights whatever scientifically available. "has inherently qualities eyewitness identification Watkins Sowders, 449 341, 350, 101 654, 659, 66 549 (1981) (BRENNAN, dissenting). Such "notoriously unreliable," ibid.; Wade, 388 218, 228, 87 1926, 1933, 1149 (1967); Manson Brathwaite, 432 98, 111-112, 2243, 2251-2252, 53 140 impacts juries. "All strikingly almost convincing live human being takes stand, finger says, 'That's one!' E. Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony (1979). Studies children mistaken identifications adults, especially encouraged adults. Cohen & Harnick, Susceptibility Child Witnesses Suggestion, Human Behavior 201 Other studies element relevance case: "Cross-racial race identifications." Rahaim Brodsky, Empirical Evidence versus Common Sense: Juror Lawyer Knowledge Accuracy, Psych. Rev. 1, authorities alone, corroboration, suspicion. loud muffler, country music playing radio, key. others inoperative incident, working ran quietly, radio work, screwdriver. disposing 51-52, 593-594 Even articulated resolution act consideration state." record (which itself

Category: 3