312 F. Supp. 3d 170
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- On June 1, 2017 U.S. Marshals and MPD executed a writ of restitution at an apartment where Deputy Marshals and an eviction crew discovered an AR-15 (in a green bag), AR-15 magazines, two handguns, ammunition, and two vials containing a brownish/yellowish liquid. Taylor, on the lease and present, was detained and later indicted on multiple counts, later narrowed to a § 922(g)(1) indictment for the AR-15 and its ammunition.
- At a pretrial suppression hearing, the Court suppressed Taylor's custodial statements (Miranda) but denied suppression of physical evidence; testimony and photographs introduced suggested some contraband (handguns, alleged PCP) likely belonged to another resident (Veandre/Purvis).
- The government later dismissed charges relating to the handguns, handgun ammunition, and alleged PCP and refiled a single-count retyped indictment charging only unlawful possession of the AR-15 and ammunition.
- Taylor moved to dismiss the indictment or, alternatively, for a curative jury instruction, arguing the government violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and Rule 16 by failing to collect and preserve additional evidence from the apartment (e.g., the green bag, surrounding items, room photographs, mail addressed to Purvis).
- The government had photographed and seized the contraband itself and allowed inspection of the seized items; it did not collect or retain other apartment contents, many of which were left on the curb after the eviction.
- The Court denied Taylor’s motion without prejudice, concluding Taylor had not shown government bad faith under Youngblood nor that the uncollected items were within the government’s possession, custody, or control under Rule 16 on the present record; Taylor may renew the motion based on trial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to collect additional apartment evidence violated Due Process | Taylor: government acted in bad faith by not preserving/photographing the green bag, nearby items, and room scenes, depriving him of potentially exculpatory evidence | Government: omissions were negligent/incomplete at best; no evidence of bad faith and some exculpatory indicia were preserved (photos, seized contraband) | Denied: no showing of bad faith as required by Youngblood; incompleteness/neglect insufficient for due process violation; may renew if trial evidence suggests otherwise |
| Whether Rule 16 required preservation/collection of all items found at the scene before a discovery request | Taylor: Rule 16 and Bryant require government to preserve evidence found at scene even before a defense request; items were effectively within government control | Government: Rule 16 applies to items in government possession, custody, or control; it did seize the contraband but not other apartment contents; no evidence it gathered and then failed to preserve additional items | Denied: under Bryant and later D.C. Cir. precedent, Rule 16 duty attaches to evidence government has gathered/taken into possession; mere temporary control of premises does not transform all scene items into government-controlled evidence |
| Whether failure to activate body-worn camera supports inference of misconduct/bad faith | Taylor: Officer Logan’s failure to activate BWCs suggests concealment and supports inference of bad faith | Government: camera use was new policy, Logan arrived after most movement of evidence, and no indication camera would have preserved relevant exculpatory facts | Denied: failure to activate BWC alone is not prima facie proof of bad faith; courts decline to infer bad faith from noncompliance absent other indicia |
| Whether further pretrial evidentiary hearing is warranted | Taylor: requests further hearing to develop facts of nonpreservation and bad faith | Government: prior expansive suppression hearing testimony explored the scene; no new indicia of bad faith presented | Denied: prior testimony did not reveal bad faith; additional hearing not justified on current record; Taylor may renew at trial if new evidence arises |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (establishes bad-faith requirement for due process claim based on lost/unaltered evidence)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (due process requires preservation when exculpatory value is apparent and evidence is irreplaceable)
- United States v. Bryant, 439 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 16 preservation duty arises for evidence government has gathered/taken into possession)
- United States v. McKie, 951 F.2d 399 (D.C. Cir.) (discusses Youngblood standard in D.C. Circuit context)
- United States v. Vega, 826 F.3d 514 (D.C. Cir.) (post-Youngblood discussion of Bryant and limits on due process claims for unclear exculpatory value)
- United States v. Marshall, 132 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir.) (prosecutor may not sandbag by leaving evidence with another agency; cautions against gamesmanship in discovery)