California v. Trombetta

This Source Verification Page documents California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984), a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States cited in Claim I of the Supplemental Motion. The Court established that due process requires the preservation of evidence possessing apparent exculpatory value when that evidence cannot reasonably be obtained by other available means. The decision provides the constitutional framework governing claims involving the preservation of materially exculpatory evidence.

Related SMAR Citation

“[California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984)]”

Case Name

California v. Trombetta

Citation

467 U.S. 479 (1984)

Date

June 11, 1984

Verification Source

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984)

Source Location

Supreme Court of the United States

Highlighted Pages

1–2, 6

Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 46, Paragraph: 94

Source Status

✔ Original Supreme Court opinion obtained and reviewed.

✔ Relevant passages highlighted.

✔ Publicly available source.

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive.

Cited to Support

Lyle C. May alleges that law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation of his case failed to properly preserve, maintain, account for, or disclose physical evidence and that deficiencies in the preservation and handling of evidence warrant further judicial review. Claim I cites California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984), for the constitutional principle that due process requires the preservation of evidence possessing apparent exculpatory value when that evidence cannot reasonably be obtained through other available means.

The decision establishes the constitutional framework governing claims involving materially exculpatory evidence and its preservation by law enforcement. May relies upon this authority in support of his allegations that the handling of physical evidence during the investigation and prosecution in Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina, impaired his ability to challenge the State's evidence and warrants further judicial scrutiny.

Supporting Documents

Original Opinion

Official published opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States as cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View Website →

Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted portions relied upon in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →