United States v. Quinones

United States District Court · Evidence

EvidenceDNA evidencetouch DNAconsumption of evidencepotentially useful evidencebad faithTrombettaYoungblood

Facts

The government planned to authorize consumption of three sets of swabs during touch-DNA testing: swabs from the Steak 'N Egg restaurant, from a Lexus automobile, and from clothing seized at the apartment where Quinones was arrested. Quinones argued that consuming the swabs would deprive him of potentially exculpatory evidence and asked the court to require the government to cut each swab in half and preserve half for the defense. The government responded that neither the Constitution nor Rule 16 required preservation of half of each sample and that consuming the full samples was scientifically preferable. The government submitted a sworn declaration from Dr. Bruce Budowle stating that using all DNA from low-quantity samples maximizes the possibility of obtaining probative DNA information.

Issue

Whether due process or Rule 16 required the government to preserve part of the collected biological swabs instead of consuming them during touch-DNA testing. More specifically, the question was whether consumption of the samples would violate the defendant's right to potentially exculpatory evidence or his right to inspect material under Rule 16.

Rule

Under the Due Process Clause, evidence is constitutionally material only if its exculpatory value was apparent before destruction and the defendant cannot obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. When evidence is only potentially useful because testing might have exonerated the defendant, failure to preserve it violates due process only upon a showing of bad faith. Rule 16(a)(1)(E) requires the government to permit inspection of covered items only if they are within its possession, custody, or control and are material to preparing the defense, intended for use in the government's case-in-chief, or obtained from or belonging to the defendant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, federal agents recovered a tiny skin-cell sample from the handle of a crowbar found near a warehouse burglary. The prosecution's laboratory director submitted a sworn declaration that using the entire low-quantity sample is the most scientifically reliable method for generating probative DNA results, while defendant Aaron Vega asks the court to require the lab to preserve half for his own expert.

If the sample is consumed during testing and Aaron cannot point to any improper motive beyond the decision to use the entire sample, how should the court rule on his due process claim?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, evidence that merely could be subjected to tests whose results might exonerate the defendant is only potentially useful, not constitutionally material in the Trombetta sense. For potentially useful evidence, due process is violated only on a showing of bad faith under Youngblood. Where the government offers scientific support that consuming the full low-quantity sample is the most sound method, the court may find no bad faith and deny the request to preserve half.