United States v. Estefani Zaragoza-Moreira, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4320

On Dec. 22, 2011, Estefani Zaragoza entered the San Ysidro pedestrian line and was ultimately found to have packages of heroin and methamphetamine taped to her body; she claimed she was coerced and tried to attract officers' attention while in line.
Homeland Security Agent Ashley Alvarado interviewed Zaragoza (recorded and transcribed); Zaragoza repeatedly asserted duress, describing attempts to draw attention (wiggling, patting stomach, throwing passport) and named accomplices present in the line.
Alvarado’s probable cause statement and most reports omitted Zaragoza’s duress claims; defense counsel sent a preservation letter (Dec. 28, 2011) requesting Port of Entry video.
CBP’s surveillance footage from Dec. 22 was automatically recorded over (~30–45 days) and was destroyed around Jan. 21, 2012 before the USAO requested it; district court ordered preservation only later.
Zaragoza moved to dismiss the indictment for destruction of potentially useful evidence; district court denied the motion. She entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.)	Defendant's Argument (Zaragoza)	Held
Whether destroyed Port-of-Entry video was "potentially useful" to defendant's duress claim	Video not materially exculpatory; government did not concede potential usefulness	Video could show conduct in line (attempts to attract attention) supporting duress	Video was potentially useful and could have corroborated duress (court so found)
Whether government acted in bad faith in failing to preserve video	Failure was oversight/negligence, not deliberate suppression	Alvarado knew of duress allegations and of video existence; her failure to preserve was bad faith	Court reversed district court: Alvarado knew apparent exculpatory value and acted in bad faith
Whether defendant can obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means	Claimant can testify and cross-examine officers; comparable evidence exists	Defendant’s testimony would implicate Fifth Amendment and be inferior; officers did not observe line behavior	Court held Zaragoza could not obtain comparable evidence; video was unique and unavailable
Effect of AUSA/USAO conduct and defense preservation letter	Plea negotiations and oversight explain inaction; AUSA’s conduct not material	AUSA’s failure to act on preservation request is problematic and not excused by negotiations	Court did not need to rely on AUSA conduct because Alvarado’s bad faith sufficed; AUSA inaction noted as troubling

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (due process requires preservation when evidence has apparent exculpatory value and no comparable evidence exists)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (to show due process violation for lost evidence defendant must also show government acted in bad faith)
United States v. Sivilla, 714 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2013) (bad-faith inquiry turns on government knowledge of evidence's apparent exculpatory value)
United States v. Cooper, 983 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1993) (value of destroyed evidence is apparent when repeatedly suggested to agents)
United States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2012) (bad faith depends on what government knew when evidence/witness became unavailable)
United States v. Kuok, 671 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining elements of duress defense)
United States v. Ibarra-Pino, 657 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2011) (escape/surrender opportunity relevant to duress third element)
United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1984) (defendant must present evidence of attempt to surrender at first reasonable opportunity)
United States v. Hernandez-Meza, 720 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2013) (government’s Rule 16 disclosure obligations; failure to preserve may implicate discovery rules)

Outcome: Reversed — district court erred in finding no bad faith; remanded with directions to dismiss the indictment.