McCarthy v. Pollard
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17690
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- McCarthy was convicted under Wis. Stat. § 940.25(1)(am) for causing great bodily harm while under Cocaine influence.
- The car he drove during the incident was destroyed by city authorities while he was in a coma, before trial.
- McCarthy alleged destruction violated due process by destroying potentially exculpatory evidence.
- The defense sought dismissal; the trial court denied, citing no duty to preserve the car and no exculpatory value.
- Wisconsin appellate and supreme courts rejected the due process challenge, ruling the destruction was in good faith with no apparent exculpatory value.
- McCarthy pursued federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to preserve exculpatory evidence under Trombetta/Youngblood | McCarthy argues bad faith or apparent exculpatory value. | State courts found no bad faith and no apparent exculpatory value. | Wisconsin courts reasonably concluded no due process violation. |
| Whether destruction was in bad faith under Youngblood | Destruction done with knowledge of exculpatory value. | Destroying according to normal procedures; no bad faith proven. | Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably find no bad faith. |
| Apparent exculpatory value standard under Trombetta/Youngblood | Vehicle had apparent exculpatory value due to brake failure defense. | Brake failure not apparent; defense evidence insufficient. | Vehicle did not have apparent exculpatory value before destruction. |
| AEDPA standard of review | State court interpretation should be reviewed for unreasonableness. | State court reasonably applied Trombetta/Youngblood. | Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law. |
| Outcome under habeas corpus law | Petition should be granted due to due process violation. | No constitutional violation found. | Petition denied; district court’s denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (duty to preserve evidence; no exculpatory value required for duty to preserve)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (bad faith required for failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (reasonableness review under AEDPA; correct governing rule but unreasonable application)
- United States v. Kimoto, 588 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2009) (derivation of three-part Trombetta/Youngblood test)
- Henry v. Page, 223 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2000) (explanation of Trombetta/Youngblood test)
- Conner v. McBride, 375 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA review framework)