| | Table of Forms | Law Journals | | Law Students | | iLaw Dictionar | | News |
![]() |
United States |
|||||||||
|
Constitutional Law |
||||||||||
|
US Supreme Court Case Summaries |
||||||||||
|
February 23, 2004 |
| US Codes | |California Evidence Code | | California Rules of Court | | Federal Courts | | Lawyers |
| |
War | On Terrorism | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
USA Constitutional Law
Table of Contents: Primary
United States
Constitutional Law
United States Supreme
Court Case Summaries
February 23, 2004
Date: 2004/02/23 Mon PM 05:22:12 CST
ILLINOIS v. FISHER, No. 03-374 (U.S.S.C February 23, 2004)
We have held that when the State suppresses or fails to disclose material exculpatory evidence, the good or bad faith of the prosecution is irrelevant: a due process violation occurs whenever such evidence is withheld. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976). In Youngblood, by contrast, we recognized that the Due Process Clause "requires a different result when we deal with the failure of the State to preserve evidentiary material of which no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant." 488 U. S., at 57. We concluded that the failure to preserve this "potentially useful evidence" does not violate due process "unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police." Id., at 58 (emphasis added).
. . . .
The substance seized from respondent was plainly the sort of "potentially useful evidence" referred to in Youngblood, not the material exculpatory evidence addressed in Brady and Agurs. At most, respondent could hope that, had the evidence been preserved, a fifth test conducted on the substance would have exonerated him. See Youngblood, 488 U. S., at 57. But respondent did not allege, nor did the Appellate Court find, that the Chicago police acted in bad faith when they destroyed the substance. Quite the contrary, police testing indicated that the chemical makeup of the substance inculpated, not exculpated, respondent, see id., at 57, n., and it is undisputed that police acted in "good faith and in accord with their normal practice," id., at 56 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U. S. 479, 488 (1984) (in turn quoting Killian v. United States, 368 U. S. 231, 242 (1961))). Under Youngblood, then, respondent has failed to establish a due process violation.
PER CURIAM
ILLINOIS v. FISHER, No. 03-374 (U.S.S.C February 23, 2004)
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-374.html
ILLINOIS v. GREGORY FISHERNo. 03-374. Decided February 23, 2004-The
Opinion
========================================================================
![]()
California Courts
|California Penal Code |
Federal Criminal Procedure |
iLaw
Dictionary
United States Law Law Journals TITLE PAGE |
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com
|
iLaw
Dictionary.Com
Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet
| California Injury (Torts) Law
|California
Contracts Law.com
USA Entertainment.US | iBusiness
Center.US |
eAttorney Yellow Pages.Com |
eCalifornia Criminal Law.Com |United
States Law.US
________________
Have a BEAUTIFUL DAY!!!!
![]()
Copyright 2000
©TM
UsaConstitutionalLaw.Com AllRights Reserved