A practice manual as well as an authoritative resource,
Destruction of
Evidence analyzes issues from the standpoints of civil litigation,
criminal litigation, and the laws of professional responsibility.
Destruction of Evidence also discusses in-depth such areas as:
the
spoliation inferencethe tort of spoliationdiscovery sanctionsethics,
androutine destruction Also included is an expanded discussion of discovery
sanctions, including procedural issues, choice-of-law considerations, the
requirements for preserving sanctions issues for appellate review, burdens of
proof, and appellate review.
The supplement keeps you up to date on the continuing development of
the controversial torts of both first- and third party spoliation of evidence:
Massachusetts has declined to recognize a cause of action in tort for
intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence The Supreme Court of
Mississippi did not recognize an independent cause of action for the
intentional spoliation of evidence against first or third party spoliators
Nevada declined to recognize an independent tort spoliation of evidence when
weighed against the "potentially endless litigation over a speculative loss,
and by the cost to society of promoting onerous record and evidence retention
policies"
Constitutional implications in the realm of criminal law. Many
states within the last year have been addressing the potential for due process
violations when evidence is destroyed and are continuing to adopt and expand
the rules dictated by Brady, Trombetta, and Youngblood.
While each of these new jurisdictions refused to find due process violation,
this trend recognizes the increased potential for constitutional violations
when evidence is destroyed: Hawaii refused to find a constitutional
violation where a police officer failed to save her completed police report,
citing Brady The Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that a defendant
was not denied due process by spoliation of crime scene evidence, citing
Trombetta Nevada, using a bad faith standard, ruled that an independent
laboratory's failure to refrigerate a defendant's blood sample did not violate
due process A New Jersey court did not find a due process violation where
the police had lost a videotape of the administration of breath tests for a
DUI charge Oklahoma ruled that a defendant's due process rights were not
violated when the police destroyed latent crime scene fingerprints, citing
Youngblood Using an exculpatory evidence standard, the Supreme Court of
South Dakota ruled that the State's release of a rape victim's vehicle without
notice to the defendant did not violate the defendant's due process rights.
Automatic Supplementation
