Evidence is the foundation on which justice stands in a criminal trial. What occurs when this vital evidence is destroyed, damaged, or altered before it is examined? This is the main problem of evidence spoilage or spoliation, a serious issue in criminal cases. It is not just a matter of an accident. It can include the intentional or careless destruction or alteration of physical evidence by the police or the prosecution.

Spoiled evidence can severely affect your defense, and it may be challenging to prove you are innocent or refute the prosecution's allegations. To safeguard your future when being criminally charged in California, it is essential to know what evidence spoliation is, and, more importantly, what rights you possess in case of its occurrence.

What is Spoilage Evidence?

Spoliation of evidence is the destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence with intent or negligence in a legal case. This concept is important to understand since it can greatly influence the result of a trial or criminal case. Spoliation entails a party impeding a legal proceeding by rendering important information unobtainable.

Spoliation law is based on the duty to preserve evidence. This obligation comes about when there is a pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. Once a party is aware, or should reasonably be, that some evidence may be relevant to a future litigation, it must take measures to ensure that it is not lost or destroyed. This can be about a broad set of information, not only physical evidence, including documents or objects, but also digital data commonly referred to as electronic discovery or E-Discovery, like emails, text messages, and computer files. This duty is wide in scope because it encompasses any relevant information that may be utilized in proving or disproving a claim.

Typical Spoliation in Various Kinds of Cases

Spoliation is easier to understand when analyzing its practical application in different legal contexts. Evidence destruction may occur in various cases and directly affect the possibility of proving or defending a claim.

Spoliation in the case of personal injuries usually consists of destroying vital visual or maintenance records. This may involve:

  • A driver of an accident, deleting dashcam videos
  • The failure by a property owner to maintain records of a faulty elevator
  • The destruction of photos of an accident scene by a party

In the same way, premises liability lawsuits are often the subject of spoliation of surveillance video of a slip and fall, or if a staircase is broken, it is repaired immediately after the accident, so an independent engineer or expert cannot inspect the original unsafe condition.

Spoliation can also occur in business litigation. These may include:

  • Shredding financial records
  • Cleaning company hard drives to erase incriminating files
  • Deleting emails that may be relevant to a contract case or an inquiry into fraud

Spoliation also assumes a different, but equally effective, form in criminal cases. It may happen when the police lose body camera recordings that include exculpatory evidence, or when primary physical evidence could clear a defendant but is somehow misplaced.

Proving Spoliation in a California Court

Evidence spoilage may significantly affect the effectiveness of a criminal defense. It hinders the possibility of proving the innocence of a defendant or effectively disproves the claims made by the prosecution.

In a criminal court, proving that evidence spoilage has occurred and warrants a remedy involves distinct legal considerations, primarily centered on due process rights rather than the civil tort of spoliation. The aggrieved party, here the defendant, must prove that the destruction or loss of evidence has disadvantaged him/her in his/her right to a fair trial.

Several elements and principles are examined:

  • Duty to preserve — The prosecution, including law enforcement, has a significant and affirmative obligation to preserve material evidence in a criminal case. This obligation is based upon the constitutional rights of the defendant, specifically, your right to a fair trial and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and similar rights in the California Constitution, whether or not the defense has expressly sought the evidence.
  • Materiality of the evidence — The lost or destroyed evidence must have been material to the allegations or defenses in the criminal litigation. This means that the evidence should have a reasonable probability of influencing the case outcome. It may be exculpatory (tending to show innocence or to contradict guilt) or furnish a ground of impeachment of prosecution witnesses. The likelihood of the evidence proving or disproving a material fact that directly touches the problems at issue is paramount.
  • Loss or destruction — It should be demonstrated that the evidence is no longer present in its original condition or that it has been lost or destroyed by the prosecution or the law enforcement agency because of the acts or omissions by the prosecution or law enforcement. This involves proving that the evidence was present and later disappeared or became unusable.
  • Bad faith — An important aspect of criminal spoliation actions often demands showing that the police or prosecution acted in bad faith by destroying or failing to preserve the evidence. Where the exculpatory character of the evidence was seemingly exculpatory (the evidence's usefulness to the defense was obvious before destruction), a bad-faith demonstration might not be critical to a remedy. However, when the evidence was only potentially exculpatory, its usefulness to the defense was not apparent at its destruction. Bad faith, for example, a conscious attempt to withhold evidence or a wanton indifference to its retention, must usually be shown to prove a due process violation. Ordinary carelessness in retaining potentially exculpatory evidence is typically insufficient to merit a drastic remedy.
  • Prejudice to the defense — It is your responsibility to eventually prove that the loss of the evidence has truly disadvantaged your capacity to prove your case, offer a full defense, or meaningfully challenge the prosecution's story. This means that the lack of evidence has imposed an unjust disadvantage on the defendant and denied the defendant the right to a fair trial.

Remedies for Evidence Spoliation in Criminal Cases

In a criminal case where the spoilage of evidence is proved, the court will deal with it mainly by coming up with remedies or sanctions to address the injustice done to the accused and respect their constitutional right to a fair trial and due process. These remedies aim to counter the case of the prosecution, not generally as direct penalties for the members of the prosecution team.

The following is how criminal courts deal with the issue of spoilage of evidence as far as remedies are concerned:

Adverse Jury Instruction

It is the most common reaction to evidence spoilage. The judge tells the jury that they can assume the missing or destroyed evidence would have worked against the prosecution. This guidance lets the jury regard the nonexistence of the evidence as a factor against the state, meaning that the state could have suppressed or destroyed the evidence because it would have assisted the defense.

Exclusion of Evidence

The court might disregard other related evidence that the prosecution plans to use. If the evidence destroyed formed a key part in the comprehension or refutation of other evidence, it may be considered unjust to permit the remainder of the evidence to be presented without the lost background. This undermines the prosecution's case by excluding some elements of the case from the jury.

Dismissal of Charges

Dismissal of charges is the most extreme solution and is used in the most extreme situations of evidence corruption.

A court will be willing to dismiss charges in the case:

  • The exculpatory evidence that was lost or destroyed was material, that is, it obviously would have been helpful to the defense.
  • The law enforcement or prosecution was in egregious bad faith in destroying or failing to preserve the evidence.
  • The bias in favour of you, the defendant, to get a fair trial is so extreme that no other remedy can be used to correct it.

This remedy recognizes that the violation of due process is so fundamental that allowing the case to go further would be unconstitutional.

Limitation on Arguments

The court may not allow the prosecution to argue some points or introduce a theory that heavily depends on the missing evidence or would be unjust without it.

Your Rights and Immediate Actions

Knowing your rights and acting quickly and proactively is critical if you suspect evidence spoilage has occurred. The subsequent steps will depend on whether you have a civil or a criminal case.

Your Rights in a Civil Case

In a civil case, the first and most crucial step is to send an official Preservation of Evidence letter. This letter, written by your lawyer, unequivocally notifies the antagonistic party of their legal obligation to preserve specific evidence pertinent to the case and cautions them of the possible repercussions of its destruction. It should designate the evidence that should be maintained, the legal basis of the preservation requirement, and an intention to seek legal remedies if the evidence is not preserved.

In addition to the letter, everything must be documented. Keep a close record of all requests you make about evidence, evidence you receive, and any time you believe evidence is either destroyed or tampered with. Your attorney can file a court motion if evidence is destroyed or withheld. This motion will request that a judge order the other party to produce the evidence or impose sanctions on them if it is destroyed.

The rules of civil litigation and evidence are complex, and consulting an experienced civil litigation attorney is not only wise but a non-negotiable step in navigating these issues successfully and taking the necessary legal steps to preserve your rights.

Your Rights in a Criminal Case

Your rights to evidence spoliation in a criminal case are based on your constitutional right to a fair trial, which, in this case, is due process. One significant protection is a Brady violation, where the prosecution fails to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, that is, evidence that favors the defense. This may be a type of concealment spoliation since withholding exculpatory evidence directly affects the ability of the defendant to present a complete defense.

The Trombetta-Youngblood standard applies when evaluating whether evidence destruction by law enforcement violates due process when there is a question of physical destruction of evidence by the police or the prosecution. This legal rule determines when this destruction is against due process. The defense must prove that the evidence possessed apparent exculpatory value when destroyed, and, more importantly, that the police or prosecution had acted in bad faith. The most challenging part of this standard is establishing bad faith.

If you believe there is a possibility of destruction or suppression of evidence by police or prosecutors in your criminal case, notify your criminal defense lawyer promptly. They know how to make the necessary motions, including Trombetta-Youngblood motion, to obtain these remedies like the suppression of the evidence or even the dismissal of charges, so that your constitutional rights are not violated.

Intentional Spoliation vs. Negligent Spoliation

The difference between intentional and negligent spoliation is also significant in California law. It focuses on the state of mind of the spoliator, which often directly affects the harshness and nature of the legal consequences that follow.

Intentional spoliation is when a party destroys, alters, or hides evidence to make it inadmissible in a legal proceeding. This is a deliberate and willful act to obstruct the equitable dispensation of justice and is a clear disregard of legal duty and perhaps the truth-seeking role of the courts. They are often planned, with active measures to destroy or conceal critical information that would harm their case or benefit a party on the opposite side.

In sharp contrast, negligent spoliation occurs when evidence is lost or destroyed due to negligence, neglect, or mere failure to exercise reasonable care in preserving the evidence, but, most importantly, without a sinister intent to hinder justice. This may include:

  • Inadvertent destruction of digital records
  • Losing physical records
  • Failing to have appropriate processes in place to preserve relevant information

Negligent behavior may not be as serious as intentional spoliation, but it can still create substantial prejudice to a legal proceeding by depriving a party of vital evidence. The distinction is that there is no intent to defeat justice; destruction is a side effect of negligence, not a strategic cover-up effort.

The intent of the spoliator is, therefore, supreme since intent, sometimes called bad faith, is usually the key to applying the harshest sanctions in a civil case. For example, a judge is likelier to issue an adverse inference instruction when intentional destruction is established. This strong guidance enables the jury to presume that the destroyed evidence would have been disadvantageous to the side that destroyed it, which is a punishment against their intentional misuse of the legal system.

On the same note, in criminal cases, showing a bad faith of the law enforcement or the prosecution is an essential criterion to receive some due process remedies under the Trombetta-Youngblood standard, and it points to a higher level of proving constitutional violations due to evidence destruction.

To help vividly demonstrate this difference, consider a business with a regular policy of shredding old, irrelevant financial records because that is part of its standard record retention policy. Assuming that, through bad luck, some of those shredded records later become relevant in a foreseeable lawsuit, this may be classified as negligent spoliation since there was no intent to destroy evidence relating to this specific future lawsuit. However, if the business receives a formal notice of a lawsuit or a preservation of evidence letter, it then proceeds to shred specific documents directly related to the allegations in that lawsuit.

An act of this nature shows a clear and intentional effort to hide evidence and derail the judicial process, and it would be hard to doubt the malicious intent of the spoliator.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on Evidence Spoliation

The complexities of evidence spoliation usually have specific questions to be answered, especially regarding legal recourse and the restrictions in California. Here are answers to some common questions:

Can I Bring an Independent Lawsuit on Spoliation of Evidence in California?

No. The California Supreme Court abolished the independent tort of spoliation in 2000 in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court case. This means that you cannot pursue a stand-alone case just because evidence was destroyed. Rather, spoliation is considered in an ongoing proceeding in the form of sanctions requests against the offending party. The cures to spoliation are requested and imposed in the current litigation through either negative inference instructions or financial sanctions.

What Happens When The Evidence Was Destroyed by a Third Party (Not The Other Party In My Lawsuit)?

Third-party spoliation is a more complicated situation. Although California law lacks a direct cause of action for spoliation against a third party, some avenues exist. If the third party acted on behalf of an opposing party or at its instruction in your case, their actions may be attributed to that party, and sanctions may be imposed. Under other circumstances, when the third party had an independent legal obligation to maintain the evidence, for example, a custodian of records, their breach of that obligation may have provided other legal bases to claim against them, not usually a spoliation claim.

Does a Spoliation Issue Have a Time Limit?

Yes, the problem of spoliation should generally be brought up at the discovery stage of the pending litigation, long before trial. Destruction or concealment of evidence is an important issue that needs to be addressed once it is suspected. Any delay in reporting the matter to the court may lead to you losing your right to pursue the remedies or sanctions. This immediate intervention enables the court to take the necessary steps to reduce the prejudice created by the spoliation. It ensures that the question of evidence will be answered before the trial.

Find a Criminal Defense Attorney Near Me

Any legal case is founded on evidence, which could be deliberately destroyed, carelessly lost, or spoliated, and this spoliation can drastically undermine your chances of a fair result. It is important to understand spoliation, the critical element of preserving evidence, and the test used to prove it in court. Enforcing your legal rights can often come down to being proactive, sending a formal preservation of evidence letter as soon as you suspect something is wrong.

The Los Angeles Criminal Lawyer team’s experience is invaluable in evaluating the situation, developing the required documentation, and filing the appropriate motions to protect your case and ensure the integrity of the legal process. Call us at 310-502-1314 for further assistance.