arizona
youngblood
argued
october
decided
november
victim
boy
molested
sodomized
man
hours
assault
boy
taken
hospital
physician
used
swab
sexual
assault
kit
collect
semen
samples
boy
rectum
police
also
collected
boy
clothing
failed
refrigerate
police
criminologist
later
performed
tests
rectal
swab
boy
clothing
unable
obtain
information
identity
boy
assailant
trial
expert
witnesses
testified
respondent
might
completely
exonerated
timely
performance
tests
properly
preserved
semen
samples
respondent
convicted
child
molestation
sexual
assault
kidnaping
arizona
state
arizona
appeals
reversed
conviction
ground
state
breached
constitutional
duty
preserve
semen
samples
victim
body
clothing
held
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
require
state
preserve
semen
samples
even
though
samples
might
useful
respondent
unless
criminal
defendant
show
bad
faith
part
police
failure
preserve
potentially
useful
evidence
constitute
denial
due
process
law
police
failure
refrigerate
victim
clothing
perform
tests
semen
samples
worst
described
negligent
none
information
concealed
respondent
trial
evidence
made
available
respondent
expert
declined
perform
tests
samples
arizona
appeals
noted
opinion
agrees
suggestion
bad
faith
part
police
moreover
due
process
clause
violated
state
failed
perform
newer
test
semen
samples
police
constitutional
duty
perform
particular
tests
pp
reversed
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
white
scalia
kennedy
joined
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
blackmun
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
joined
post
john
gustafson
argued
cause
petitioner
brief
stephen
neely
james
howard
deborah
strange
ward
daniel
davis
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
chief
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
respondent
larry
youngblood
convicted
pima
county
arizona
jury
child
molestation
sexual
assault
kidnaping
arizona
appeals
reversed
conviction
ground
state
failed
preserve
semen
samples
victim
body
clothing
granted
certiorari
consider
extent
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
requires
state
preserve
evidentiary
material
might
useful
criminal
defendant
october
david
boy
attended
church
service
mother
left
service
boy
went
carnival
behind
church
abducted
man
medium
height
weight
assailant
drove
boy
secluded
area
near
ravine
molested
took
boy
unidentified
sparsely
furnished
house
sodomized
boy
four
times
afterwards
assailant
tied
boy
went
outside
start
car
assailant
started
car
albeit
difficulty
returned
house
sodomized
boy
assailant
sent
boy
bathroom
wash
returned
carnival
threatened
kill
boy
told
anyone
attack
entire
ordeal
lasted
hours
boy
made
way
home
mother
took
kino
hospital
hospital
physician
treated
boy
rectal
injuries
physician
also
used
sexual
assault
kit
collect
evidence
attack
tucson
police
department
provided
kits
hospitals
pima
county
use
sexual
assault
cases
standard
procedure
victim
sexual
assault
taken
hospital
physician
used
kit
collect
evidence
kit
included
paper
collect
saliva
samples
tube
obtaining
blood
sample
microscopic
slides
making
smears
set
swabs
medical
examination
report
physician
used
swab
collect
samples
boy
rectum
mouth
made
microscopic
slide
samples
doctor
also
obtained
samples
boy
saliva
blood
hair
physician
examine
samples
time
police
placed
kit
secure
refrigerator
police
station
hospital
police
also
collected
boy
underwear
clothing
refrigerated
frozen
nine
days
attack
november
police
asked
boy
pick
assailant
photographic
lineup
boy
identified
respondent
assailant
respondent
located
police
four
weeks
later
arrested
december
november
edward
heller
police
criminologist
examined
sexual
assault
kit
testified
followed
standard
department
procedure
examine
slides
determine
whether
sexual
contact
occurred
determined
contact
occurred
criminologist
perform
tests
although
placed
assault
kit
back
refrigerator
testified
tests
identify
blood
group
substances
routinely
conducted
initial
examination
assault
kit
half
cases
event
test
clothing
time
respondent
indicted
charges
child
molestation
sexual
assault
kidnaping
state
moved
compel
respondent
provide
blood
saliva
samples
comparison
material
gathered
use
sexual
assault
kit
trial
denied
motion
ground
state
obtained
sufficiently
large
semen
sample
make
valid
comparison
prosecutor
asked
state
criminologist
perform
abo
blood
group
test
rectal
swab
sample
attempt
ascertain
blood
type
boy
assailant
test
failed
detect
blood
group
substances
sample
january
police
criminologist
examined
boy
clothing
first
time
found
one
semen
stain
boy
underwear
another
rear
criminologist
tried
obtain
blood
group
substances
stains
using
abo
technique
unsuccessful
also
performed
protein
molecule
test
stains
indicated
small
quantity
semen
present
clothing
inconclusive
assailant
identity
tucson
police
department
begun
using
test
used
slightly
half
crime
laboratories
country
respondent
principal
defense
trial
boy
erred
identifying
perpetrator
crime
connection
criminologist
state
expert
witness
respondent
testified
might
shown
tests
performed
samples
shortly
gathered
later
tests
performed
samples
boy
clothing
clothing
properly
refrigerated
instructed
jury
found
state
destroyed
lost
evidence
might
infer
true
fact
state
interest
tr
jury
found
respondent
guilty
charged
arizona
appeals
reversed
judgment
conviction
stated
identity
issue
trial
police
permit
destruction
evidence
eliminate
defendant
perpetrator
loss
material
defense
denial
due
process
quoting
state
escalante
app
appeals
concluded
basis
expert
testimony
trial
timely
performance
tests
properly
preserved
semen
samples
produced
results
might
completely
exonerated
respondent
appeals
reached
conclusion
even
though
imply
bad
faith
part
state
arizona
denied
state
petition
review
granted
certiorari
reverse
decision
case
requires
us
consider
might
loosely
called
area
constitutionally
guaranteed
access
evidence
brady
maryland
held
suppression
prosecution
evidence
favorable
accused
upon
request
violates
due
process
evidence
material
either
guilt
punishment
irrespective
good
faith
bad
faith
prosecution
agurs
held
prosecution
duty
disclose
evidence
description
even
though
requests
made
time
rejected
notion
prosecutor
constitutional
duty
routinely
deliver
entire
file
defense
counsel
see
also
moore
illinois
know
constitutional
requirement
prosecution
make
complete
detailed
accounting
defense
police
investigatory
work
case
question
state
complied
brady
agurs
state
disclosed
relevant
police
reports
respondent
contained
information
existence
swab
clothing
boy
examination
hospital
state
provided
respondent
expert
laboratory
reports
notes
prepared
police
criminologist
respondent
expert
access
swab
clothing
respondent
prevail
federal
constitutional
grounds
must
constitutional
duty
imposed
cases
brady
agurs
recent
decision
area
law
california
trombetta
arose
drunken
driving
prosecution
state
introduced
test
results
indicating
concentration
alcohol
blood
two
motorists
defendants
sought
suppress
test
results
ground
state
failed
preserve
breath
samples
used
test
rejected
argument
several
reasons
first
officers
acting
good
faith
accord
normal
practice
quoting
killian
second
light
procedures
actually
used
chances
preserved
samples
exculpated
defendants
slim
third
even
samples
might
shown
inaccuracy
tests
defendants
alternative
means
demonstrating
innocence
present
case
likelihood
preserved
materials
enabled
defendant
exonerate
appears
greater
trombetta
unlike
trombetta
state
attempt
make
use
materials
case
chief
decisions
related
areas
stressed
importance
constitutional
purposes
good
bad
faith
part
government
claim
based
loss
evidence
attributable
government
marion
said
actual
prejudice
conduct
defense
alleged
proved
showing
government
intentionally
delayed
gain
tactical
advantage
appellees
harass
see
also
lovasco
similarly
supra
considered
whether
government
deportation
two
witnesses
illegal
aliens
violated
due
process
held
prompt
deportation
witnesses
justified
upon
executive
determination
possess
evidence
favorable
defendant
criminal
prosecution
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
interpreted
brady
makes
good
bad
faith
state
irrelevant
state
fails
disclose
defendant
material
exculpatory
evidence
think
due
process
clause
requires
different
result
deal
failure
state
preserve
evidentiary
material
said
subjected
tests
results
might
exonerated
defendant
part
reason
difference
treatment
found
observation
made
trombetta
supra
henever
potentially
exculpatory
evidence
permanently
lost
courts
face
treacherous
task
divining
import
materials
whose
contents
unknown
often
disputed
part
stems
unwillingness
read
fundamental
fairness
requirement
due
process
clause
see
lisenba
california
imposing
police
undifferentiated
absolute
duty
retain
preserve
material
might
conceivable
evidentiary
significance
particular
prosecution
think
requiring
defendant
show
bad
faith
part
police
limits
extent
police
obligation
preserve
evidence
reasonable
bounds
confines
class
cases
interests
justice
clearly
require
cases
police
conduct
indicate
evidence
form
basis
exonerating
defendant
therefore
hold
unless
criminal
defendant
show
bad
faith
part
police
failure
preserve
potentially
useful
evidence
constitute
denial
due
process
law
case
police
collected
rectal
swab
clothing
night
crime
respondent
taken
custody
six
weeks
later
failure
police
refrigerate
clothing
perform
tests
semen
samples
worst
described
negligent
none
information
concealed
respondent
trial
evidence
made
available
respondent
expert
declined
perform
tests
samples
arizona
appeals
noted
opinion
agree
suggestion
bad
faith
part
police
follows
therefore
said
violation
due
process
clause
arizona
appeals
also
referred
somewhat
obliquely
state
inability
quantitatively
test
certain
semen
samples
newer
test
meant
statement
due
process
clause
violated
police
fail
use
particular
investigatory
tool
strongly
disagree
situation
different
prosecution
drunken
driving
rests
police
observation
alone
defendant
free
argue
finder
fact
breathalyzer
test
might
exculpatory
police
constitutional
duty
perform
particular
tests
judgment
arizona
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
reversed
case
arizona
appeals
relied
earlier
decision
state
escalante
holding
identity
issue
trial
police
permit
destruction
evidence
eliminate
defendant
perpetrator
loss
material
defense
denial
due
process
quoting
escalante
supra
emphasis
added
reasoning
escalante
instant
case
mark
sharp
departure
trombetta
two
respects
first
trombetta
speaks
evidence
whose
exculpatory
value
apparent
possibility
semen
samples
exculpated
respondent
preserved
tested
enough
satisfy
standard
constitutional
materiality
trombetta
second
made
clear
trombetta
exculpatory
value
evidence
must
apparent
evidence
destroyed
ibid
emphasis
added
respondent
shown
police
knew
semen
samples
exculpated
failed
perform
certain
tests
refrigerate
boy
clothing
evidence
simply
avenue
investigation
might
led
number
directions
presence
absence
bad
faith
police
purposes
due
process
clause
must
necessarily
turn
police
knowledge
exculpatory
value
evidence
time
lost
destroyed
cf
napue
illinois
justice
stevens
concurring
judgment
three
factors
critical
importance
evaluation
case
first
time
police
failed
refrigerate
victim
clothing
thus
negligently
lost
potentially
valuable
evidence
least
great
interest
preserving
evidence
person
later
accused
crime
indeed
time
likely
evidence
useful
police
still
conducting
investigation
prosecutor
later
bear
burden
establishing
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
defendant
cases
even
without
prophylactic
sanction
dismissal
indictment
state
strong
incentive
preserve
evidence
second
although
possible
know
whether
lost
evidence
revealed
relevant
information
unlikely
defendant
prejudiced
state
omission
examining
witnesses
summation
defense
counsel
impressed
upon
jury
fact
state
failed
preserve
evidence
state
conducted
tests
might
well
exonerated
defendant
see
app
pet
cert
tr
tr
significantly
trial
judge
instructed
jury
find
state
allowed
destroyed
lost
evidence
whose
content
quality
issue
may
infer
true
fact
state
interest
tr
result
uncertainty
evidence
might
proved
turned
defendant
advantage
third
fact
juror
chose
draw
permissive
inference
proper
preservation
evidence
demonstrated
defendant
assailant
suggests
lost
evidence
immaterial
cases
make
clear
proper
standard
materiality
must
reflect
overriding
concern
justice
finding
guilt
state
failure
turn
preserve
potentially
exculpatory
evidence
therefore
must
evaluated
context
entire
record
agurs
footnotes
omitted
see
also
california
trombetta
duty
preserve
evidence
must
limited
evidence
might
expected
play
significant
role
suspect
defense
declining
defense
counsel
invitations
draw
permissive
inference
jurors
effect
indicated
view
evidence
trial
overwhelming
highly
improbable
lost
evidence
exculpatory
trombetta
found
due
process
violation
chances
extremely
low
preserved
breath
samples
exculpatory
case
jury
already
performed
calculus
based
understanding
evidence
introduced
trial
presumably
case
involving
closer
question
guilt
innocence
jurors
ready
infer
lost
evidence
exculpatory
factors
mind
concur
judgment
however
join
opinion
announces
proposition
law
much
broader
necessary
decide
case
unless
criminal
defendant
show
bad
faith
part
police
failure
preserve
potentially
useful
evidence
constitute
denial
due
process
law
ante
opinion
may
well
cases
defendant
unable
prove
state
acted
bad
faith
loss
destruction
evidence
nonetheless
critical
defense
make
criminal
trial
fundamentally
unfair
however
case
accordingly
concur
judgment
justice
blackmun
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
dissenting
constitution
requires
criminal
defendants
provided
fair
trial
merely
good
faith
try
fair
trial
respondent
may
nothing
police
ineptitude
denied
opportunity
present
full
defense
ineptitude
however
deprived
respondent
guaranteed
right
due
process
law
reversing
judgment
arizona
appeals
view
misreads
import
prior
cases
unduly
restricts
protections
due
process
clause
understanding
due
process
demonstrates
evidence
allowed
deteriorate
constitutionally
material
absence
significantly
prejudiced
respondent
accordingly
dissent
minimal
reference
past
cases
seems
less
complete
analysis
announces
unless
criminal
defendant
show
bad
faith
part
police
failure
preserve
potentially
useful
evidence
constitute
denial
due
process
law
ante
conclusion
claimed
justified
limits
extent
police
responsibility
class
cases
interests
justice
clearly
require
cases
police
conduct
indicate
evidence
form
basis
exonerating
defendant
ibid
majority
identified
clearly
one
type
violation
police
action
affirmatively
aimed
cheating
process
undoubtedly
violates
constitution
suggest
way
due
process
clause
violated
correct
regardless
intent
lack
thereof
police
action
results
defendant
receiving
unfair
trial
constitutes
deprivation
due
process
recent
pronouncement
might
loosely
called
area
constitutionally
guaranteed
access
evidence
california
trombetta
trombetta
addressed
question
whether
amendment
demands
state
preserve
potentially
exculpatory
evidence
behalf
defendants
justice
marshall
writing
noted
particular
question
one
first
impression
general
standards
applied
developed
number
cases
including
brady
maryland
agurs
cases
way
require
government
actions
deny
defendant
access
material
evidence
taken
bad
faith
order
violate
due
process
noted
majority
ante
brady
ruled
suppression
prosecution
evidence
favorable
accused
upon
request
violates
due
process
evidence
material
either
guilt
punishment
irrespective
good
faith
bad
faith
prosecution
brady
went
explain
principle
underlying
earlier
cases
mooney
holohan
violation
due
process
prosecutor
presented
perjured
testimony
punishment
society
misdeeds
prosecutor
avoidance
unfair
trial
accused
failure
turn
material
evidence
casts
prosecutor
role
architect
proceeding
comport
standards
justice
even
though
present
case
action
result
guile
quoting
lower
opinion
trombetta
also
relied
agurs
required
prosecutor
turn
defense
evidence
clearly
supportive
claim
innocence
even
without
defense
request
noted
prosecutor
duty
one
constitutional
dimension
unless
evidence
omission
deprived
defendant
fair
trial
explained
believe
constitutional
obligation
measured
moral
culpability
willfulness
prosecutor
evidence
highly
probative
innocence
file
presumed
recognize
significance
even
actually
overlooked
suppression
evidence
results
constitutional
error
character
evidence
character
prosecutor
omitted
brady
agurs
clear
holdings
prosecutor
bad
faith
interfering
defendant
access
material
evidence
essential
part
due
process
violation
trombetta
create
requirement
trombetta
initial
discussion
focused
due
process
requirement
criminal
defendants
afforded
meaningful
opportunity
present
complete
defense
noted
delivery
exculpatory
evidence
defendant
protect
innocent
erroneous
conviction
ensur
es
integrity
criminal
justice
system
ibid
although
language
trombetta
includes
quotation
words
good
faith
appear
words
two
reasons
significance
claimed
majority
first
words
antecedent
part
fuller
phrase
good
faith
accord
normal
practice
phrase
source
killian
held
practice
discarding
investigators
notes
used
compile
reports
received
evidence
violate
due
process
killian
trombetta
importance
police
compliance
usual
procedures
manifest
however
standard
conduct
claimed
suggestion
usual
procedure
ignore
possible
deterioration
important
evidence
generally
treat
material
evidence
negligent
reckless
manner
failure
refrigerate
clothing
squared
careful
steps
taken
preserve
kit
negligent
reckless
failure
preserve
important
evidence
accord
normal
practice
second
importantly
trombetta
demonstrates
absence
bad
faith
end
analysis
determination
trombetta
prosecution
acted
good
faith
according
normal
practice
merely
prefaced
primary
inquiry
centers
constitutional
materiality
evidence
nothing
trombetta
intimates
good
faith
alone
measure
cases
area
clearly
establish
police
actions
taken
bad
faith
species
police
conduct
result
violation
due
process
agurs
points
makes
sense
overturn
conviction
malicious
prosecutor
withholds
information
mistakenly
believes
material
actually
help
defense
way
makes
sense
ignore
fact
defendant
denied
fair
trial
state
allowed
evidence
material
defense
deteriorate
beyond
point
usefulness
simply
police
inept
rather
malicious
also
doubt
bad
faith
standard
creates
rule
sought
majority
apart
inherent
difficulty
defendant
obtaining
evidence
show
lack
good
faith
line
good
faith
bad
faith
anything
bright
majority
formulation
may
well
create
questions
answers
constitutes
bad
faith
purposes
defendant
show
actual
malice
recklessness
deliberate
failure
establish
standards
maintaining
preserving
evidence
sufficient
good
faith
police
work
require
certain
minimum
diligence
lazy
officer
walk
extra
steps
evidence
refrigerator
considered
acting
good
faith
majority
leaves
questions
another
day
quick
embrace
bad
faith
standard
brightened
line
moved
line
provide
fewer
protections
criminal
defendants
ii
inquiry
majority
eliminates
setting
bad
faith
rule
whether
evidence
question
constitutionally
material
destruction
violates
due
process
majority
say
whether
evidentiary
material
said
subjected
tests
results
might
exonerated
defendant
ante
purposes
due
process
material
find
question
lack
bad
faith
dispositive
consider
whether
evidence
destruction
rendered
respondent
trial
fundamentally
unfair
trombetta
requires
determine
whether
evidence
possesses
exculpatory
value
apparent
evidence
destroyed
whether
nature
defendant
unable
obtain
comparable
evidence
reasonably
available
means
trombetta
neither
requirement
met
important
note
facts
trombetta
differed
significantly
case
basic
standards
set
trombetta
controlling
inquiry
must
finely
tuned
trombetta
samples
breath
taken
suspected
drunk
drivers
discarded
police
tested
using
intoxilyzer
highly
accurate
reliable
device
measuring
concentration
levels
reasoned
likelihood
posttest
samples
proving
exculpatory
extremely
low
observed
defendants
able
attack
reliability
test
results
presenting
evidence
ways
intoxilyzer
might
malfunctioned
case
differs
trombetta
conclusive
tests
performed
relevant
evidence
distinct
possibility
case
one
present
trombetta
proper
test
exonerated
respondent
unrebutted
conclusive
test
results
consequence
although
discarded
evidence
trombetta
impeachment
value
might
shown
test
results
incorrect
lost
respondent
possibility
complete
exoneration
trombetta
specific
analysis
therefore
directly
controlling
exculpatory
value
clothing
case
determined
certainty
precisely
police
allowed
samples
deteriorate
know
several
important
things
evidence
first
semen
samples
clothing
undoubtedly
came
assailant
second
samples
tested
using
technology
available
use
local
police
department
show
either
blood
type
assailant
assailant
nonsecreter
someone
secrete
marker
body
fluids
semen
third
evidence
clearly
important
semen
sample
rape
case
identity
questioned
always
significant
see
hilliard
spalding
people
nation
cal
fourth
reasonable
police
officer
recognized
clothing
required
refrigeration
fifth
know
inconclusive
test
done
swab
test
suggested
assailant
nonsecreter
although
equally
likely
sample
swab
small
accurate
results
obtained
sixth
know
respondent
secreter
samples
clothing
tested
results
shown
either
blood
type
assailant
assailant
nonsecreter
constitutional
materiality
clear
state
conduct
deprived
defendant
courts
opportunity
determine
certainty
import
evidence
interfere
accused
ability
present
defense
imposing
requirement
government
actions
rendered
impossible
fulfill
hilliard
spalding
good
faith
intolerable
unless
particular
circumstances
case
indicate
either
evidence
likely
prove
exculpatory
defendant
able
use
effective
alternative
means
prove
point
destroyed
evidence
otherwise
made
recognize
difficulties
presented
situation
societal
interest
seeing
criminals
punished
rightly
requires
indictments
dismissed
unavailability
evidence
prevents
defendant
receiving
fair
trial
situation
substance
lost
evidence
known
materiality
analysis
laid
trombetta
adequate
situation
like
present
one
due
process
requires
something
rather
allow
state
ineptitude
saddle
defendant
impossible
burden
focus
type
evidence
possibility
might
prove
exculpatory
existence
evidence
going
point
contention
determining
whether
failure
preserve
evidence
question
violated
due
process
put
succinctly
comparable
evidence
likely
available
defendant
police
must
preserve
physical
evidence
type
reasonably
know
potential
tested
reveal
immutable
characteristics
criminal
hence
exculpate
defendant
charged
crime
first
inquiry
standard
concerns
particular
evidence
must
type
clearly
relevant
requirement
satisfied
case
identity
issue
physical
evidence
come
assailant
samples
blood
body
fluids
fingerprints
hair
tissue
samples
used
implicate
guilty
defendants
exonerate
innocent
suspects
say
physical
evidence
type
must
preserved
example
case
blood
sample
found
circumstances
make
unclear
whether
sample
came
assailant
dictates
due
process
might
compel
preservation
although
principles
sound
investigation
might
certainly
case
doubt
sample
came
assailant
presumption
must
preserved
corollary
particularly
applicable
case
evidence
embody
immutable
characteristic
assailant
determined
available
testing
methods
example
clear
fingerprint
compared
defendant
fingerprints
yield
conclusive
result
blood
sample
sample
body
fluid
contains
blood
markers
either
completely
exonerate
strongly
implicate
defendant
technology
develops
potential
type
evidence
provide
conclusive
results
number
questions
increase
current
genetic
testing
measures
frequently
used
civil
paternity
suits
extraordinarily
precise
see
clark
jeter
importance
types
evidence
indisputable
requiring
police
recognize
importance
unreasonable
next
inquiry
whether
evidence
obviously
relevant
indicates
immutable
characteristic
actual
assailant
type
likely
independently
exculpatory
requiring
defendant
prove
particular
piece
evidence
probably
independently
exculpatory
require
defendant
prove
content
something
state
misconduct
focusing
type
evidence
solves
problem
able
consider
type
evidence
available
technology
well
circumstances
case
determine
likelihood
evidence
might
proved
exculpatory
evidence
must
also
without
equivalent
particular
case
must
cumulative
collateral
cf
agurs
must
bear
directly
question
innocence
guilt
due
process
must
also
take
account
burdens
preservation
evidence
places
police
law
enforcement
officers
must
provided
option
implicit
trombetta
performing
proper
tests
physical
evidence
discarding
suspect
arrested
police
reasonable
time
may
inform
defense
counsel
plans
discard
evidence
defense
informed
existence
evidence
reasonable
time
burden
preservation
may
shift
defense
also
flexibility
deal
evidence
unusually
dangerous
difficult
store
iii
applying
standard
facts
case
conclude
arizona
appeals
correct
overturning
respondent
conviction
clothing
worn
victim
contained
samples
assailant
semen
appeals
found
samples
probably
larger
less
contaminated
likely
yield
conclusive
test
results
samples
collected
use
assault
kit
clothing
semen
stains
clothing
therefore
obviously
material
semen
body
fluid
tested
available
methods
show
immutable
characteristic
assailant
genuine
possibility
results
testing
might
exonerated
respondent
evidence
implicating
respondent
testimony
victim
eyewitness
significant
physical
evidence
respondent
car
seized
police
examined
turned
wrecking
company
dismantled
without
victim
viewed
police
also
failed
check
car
confirm
refute
elements
victim
testimony
although
closer
question
equivalent
evidence
available
respondent
swab
contained
semen
sample
sufficient
allow
proper
testing
respondent
access
evidence
tending
show
assailant
evidence
shown
physically
impossible
respondent
assailant
preservation
evidence
burden
upon
police
obviously
refrigeration
available
preservation
swab
indicates
items
clothing
likely
tax
available
storage
space
considered
context
entire
trial
failure
prosecution
preserve
evidence
deprived
respondent
fair
trial
still
remains
fundamental
value
determination
society
far
worse
convict
innocent
man
let
guilty
man
go
free
winship
concurring
opinion
evidence
case
far
conclusive
possibility
evidence
denied
respondent
exonerated
remote
result
denied
fair
trial
actions
state
consequently
denied
due
process
law
opinion
improperly
limits
scope
due
process
ignores
proper
focus
futile
pursuit
rule
dissent
footnotes
agurs
went
note
standard
applied
considering
harm
suffered
defendant
different
standard
applied
new
evidence
discovered
neutral
source
trial
prosecutor
servant
law
twofold
aim
guilt
shall
escape
innocence
suffer
quoting
berger
holding
prosecution
higher
standard
necessary
lest
special
significance
prosecutor
obligation
serve
cause
justice
lost
provide
support
majority
bad
faith
requirement
case
defendant
deprived
certain
testimony
trial
government
deported
potential
witnesses
determining
possessed
material
evidence
relevant
criminal
trial
deportations
result
malice
negligence
carried
pursuant
immigration
policy
consideration
government
motive
first
step
due
process
inquiry
government
acted
good
faith
defendant
required
make
plausible
showing
evidence
lost
material
favorable
defense
defendant
able
meet
burden
majority
bad
faith
test
defendant
opportunity
try
killian
notes
question
related
witnesses
statements
used
prepare
receipts
witnesses
signed
destroyed
accord
usual
practice
usual
practice
agents
destroy
notes
reports
prepared
notes
destroyed
different
question
closer
one
decides
today
presented
cases
relied
upon
majority
proposition
bad
faith
necessary
show
due
process
violation
marion
lovasco
concerned
claims
preindictment
delay
violated
due
process
harm
caused
delay
certainly
speculative
caused
deprivation
material
exculpatory
evidence
cases
statutes
limitations
due
process
clause
provide
primary
protection
defendants
interests
cases
shaky
foundation
radical
step
taken
today
noted
california
trombetta
absence
doctrinal
development
area
reflects
part
difficulty
developing
rules
deal
evidence
destroyed
prosecutorial
neglect
oversight
whenever
potentially
exculpatory
evidence
permanently
lost
courts
face
treacherous
task
divining
import
materials
whose
contents
unknown
often
disputed
inquiry
difficult
one
read
trombetta
say
believe
impossible
respect
constitutional
rights
demands
inquiry
made
need
case
discuss
whether
police
duty
test
evidence
whether
due
process
requires
police
testing
cutting
edge
technology
uncertainty
questions
highlights
importance
preserving
evidence
defense
opportunity
least
use
whatever
scientifically
recognized
tests
available
issue
case
recognized
inherently
suspect
qualities
eyewitness
identification
evidence
watkins
sowders
brennan
dissenting
evidence
notoriously
unreliable
ibid
see
wade
manson
brathwaite
distinct
impacts
juries
evidence
points
rather
strikingly
conclusion
almost
nothing
convincing
live
human
takes
stand
points
finger
defendant
says
one
loftus
eyewitness
testimony
studies
show
children
likely
make
mistaken
identifications
adults
especially
encouraged
adults
see
generally
cohen
harnick
susceptibility
child
witnesses
suggestion
law
human
behavior
studies
show
another
element
possible
relevance
case
crossracial
identifications
much
less
likely
accurate
race
identifications
rahaim
brodsky
empirical
evidence
versus
common
sense
juror
lawyer
knowledge
eyewitness
accuracy
law
psych
rev
authorities
suggest
eyewitness
testimony
alone
absence
corroboration
viewed
suspicion
victim
testified
car
loud
muffler
country
music
playing
radio
car
started
using
key
respondent
others
testified
car
inoperative
night
incident
working
ran
quietly
radio
work
car
started
using
screwdriver
police
check
disposing
car
see
app
even
standard
articulated
majority
proper
resolution
case
remand
consider
whether
police
act
good
faith
arizona
appeals
state
opinion
bad
faith
part
police
rather
held
proper
standard
applied
consideration
whether
failure
preserve
evidence
deprived
respondent
fair
trial
result
holding
imply
bad
faith
part
state
certainly
sufficient
basis
record
finding
police
acted
bad
faith
destruction
respondent
car
police
may
serve
remand
alternative
ground
finding
constitutional
violation
see
question
left
open
certainly
suggests
police
may
conducted
investigation
improper
animus
although
majority
provides
guidance
lack
good
faith
determined
egregious
police
action
must
police
actions
case
raise
colorable
claim
bad
faith
arizona
courts
remand
determine
failure
refrigerate
clothing
part
overall
investigation
marred
bad
faith
even
majority
test
conviction
overturned