United States v. Solis-Castillo
1:13-cr-03895
D.N.M.Mar 17, 2016Background
- Defendant Edgar Solis charged with conspiracy (Count 1) and attempted possession with intent to distribute (Count 2) relating to a November 13, 2013 reverse sting offering five kilo-sized packages of previously-seized cocaine.
- The five specific packages used in the sting were later repackaged, used in other operations, or destroyed and therefore are unavailable to the defense.
- At a March 1, 2016 pretrial hearing the government disclosed the evidence was no longer available.
- Solis moved to dismiss Counts 1 and 2, arguing the government’s failure to preserve the five packages violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights under Trombetta and Youngblood principles.
- The government contended the lost evidence was not clearly exculpatory and, if only potentially useful, dismissal requires proof of bad faith by the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the physical packages were "apparently exculpatory" such that loss violates due process | Govt: packages not apparently exculpatory; loss does not violate due process | Solis: the actual packages could show facts favorable to defense; loss prejudices him | Court: packages were not apparently exculpatory; defense may actually benefit from inability to introduce packages |
| Whether absence of fingerprints on the packages requires dismissal absent preservation and whether bad faith must be shown | Govt: when evidence is only potentially useful, dismissal requires defendant to show bad faith | Solis: absence of his fingerprints would be exculpatory; loss prevented testing | Court: fingerprint issue is "potentially useful" per Youngblood; Solis must show bad faith and has not met that burden; negligent or bureaucratic loss is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (due process requires preservation of evidence that is "apparently exculpatory")
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (when evidence is only potentially useful, defendant must show bad faith to establish due process violation)
- Grisby v. Blodgett, 130 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 1997) (negligent failure to lift fingerprints does not establish bad faith)