United States v. Victor Sivilla
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9262
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Sivilla’s Jeep contained hidden drugs discovered during a border inspection; drugs were removed by agents over two hours and photographed poorly.
- The Jeep was ordered preserved by the district court, but FP&F forfeiture procedures led to the Jeep’s sale and destruction before Sivilla could inspect.
- Sivilla moved to preserve and inspect evidence; court issued preservation order, but evidence was nonetheless destroyed while in government custody.
- Defense argued dismissal or, alternatively, a remedial jury instruction asserting inability to inspect due to preservation failure.
- District court denied dismissal and refused a remedial jury instruction; trial proceeded with government photographs as key evidence.
- Convicted on all counts; on appeal Sivilla challenged due process violation and the denial of a remedial jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires bad faith destruction to violate. | Sivilla argues the government’s negligent destruction harmed due process. | Government contends bad faith is not required for due process here. | Bad faith not required for remedial relief; no constitutional violation shown. |
| Whether a remedial jury instruction is appropriate when evidence was destroyed. | Remedial instruction is necessary to address prejudice from loss of evidence. | preservation and related photographs suffice; no need for instruction. | Remedial jury instruction warranted; abuse of discretion to deny. |
| Whether the district court properly balanced prejudice and available substitute evidence under Loud Hawk. | Loss of the Jeep deprived useful defense evidence and expert inspection. | Existing photographs and testimony provided some evidentiary value. | Prejudice substantial; Loud Hawk balancing supports remedial instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Del Toro-Barboza, 673 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of due process from destruction of evidence; bad faith standard for factual findings)
- United States v. Cooper, 983 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1993) (bad faith inquiry depends on apparent exculpatory value at destruction)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (necessity of evidence being potentially useful for due process)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (bad faith requirement for destruction of evidence where potentially useful but not necessarily exculpatory)
- United States v. Loud Hawk, 628 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir. 1979) (sanctions for destruction of evidence; balancing of government conduct and prejudice)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review framework for district court rulings)
- United States v. Belden, 957 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1992) (adverse-inference instructions; preservation of error)