United States v. Green, Criminal No. 2019-0019

Christopher Green is indicted on RICO conspiracy and related counts, including an alleged February 23, 2017 shooting (Counts Eight and Nine).
After the shooting, MPD responded twice: body-worn camera (BWC) footage from the second response was produced; BWC footage and police paperwork from an earlier response were not produced because those files were deleted under MPD’s standard retention schedule.
The government produced a computer-aided dispatch report and Axon audit trails but no handwritten notes or formal report from the first visit; government records show no MPD or USAO access/download of the deleted files before deletion.
Green argues the missing BWC (and possibly 911/radio recordings) contained exculpatory evidence showing he was not present and moves for sanctions including dismissal and evidentiary bar under Brady.
The government contends no evidence of bad faith: files were deleted routinely, were not accessed prior to deletion, and were not identified as evidentiary until after deletion; some 911 recordings were also deleted later per schedule.
The court held Youngblood governs destruction-of-evidence claims; Green failed to show bad faith, so the motion for sanctions was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brady requires sanctions for government’s failure to preserve/produce earlier BWC footage	Green: Missing footage/police paperwork likely exculpatory; nondisclosure/destruction violates Brady and warrants dismissal/evidentiary sanctions	Gov: This is a lost-evidence case governed by Youngblood, not Brady; files were deleted under routine policy and no bad faith occurred	Court: Youngblood governs; Brady does not apply to routine loss absent bad faith, so Brady sanctions not warranted
Whether deletion of BWC (and 911 recordings) violated Due Process because evidence could have been exculpatory	Green: Deleted materials could show he wasn’t present; deletion deprived him of material exculpatory evidence	Gov: Deletions occurred pursuant to standard schedules; no MPD/USAO personnel accessed files before deletion; no indication police knew of exculpatory value	Court: Defendant failed to prove bad faith by police; under Youngblood failure to preserve potentially useful evidence without bad faith does not violate due process

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material exculpatory evidence by prosecution violates due process irrespective of good or bad faith)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (when lost evidence is only potentially useful, defendant must show police bad faith to establish due process violation)
United States v. Bryant, 439 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (pre-Youngblood D.C. Circuit view that prosecution must preserve discoverable evidence)
In re Sealed Case, 99 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Youngblood displaced Bryant for lost-evidence due-process claims)
United States v. Vega, 826 F.3d 514 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (acknowledging Youngblood control over lost-evidence claims)
United States v. Burnett, 827 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (defendant bears burden to prove bad faith in failure-to-preserve claims)
United States v. McKie, 951 F.2d 399 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (applying Youngblood standard that bad faith is required for due process violation)