[teakettle42]

> the balance of the evidence weighed against the alleged exculpatory evidence

Surely you see the fundamental problem, here. This shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Demonstrating the previous existence and, in particular, the exculpatory nature of destroyed evidence is practically impossible.

If the state directly conspires to an unfair trial, the state’s case must be forfeit.

[cogman10]

The destroyed drive was discovered before the trial started and there was a motion for dismissal that was made, appealed, and ultimately denied because

A. The evidence was available through other means

B. It was not strong enough to exculpate the defendant

[1]

I agree that taking a strong inference against actions of prosecution when evidence is destroyed and unrecoverable. However, in this case, that's not what happened. Evidence was destroyed, but it was also preserved in other locations (it was uploaded on dropbox).

Our court system, while weak in many areas, isn't terrible in this sort of circumstance. It doesn't take hard lines because things are tricky.

This sort of problem with evidence is made to come out of the regular court proceedings. It's why discovery happens before we start a trial.

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/18...

[salawat]

Glad to hear it was preserved. Absolutely mortified in other senses though. Thanks for the link to the case.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you see the fundamental problem

That we’re ignoring all of the evidence that contributed to the case (and conviction, which was made after the wiped drive was discovered) outside one laptop?

[salawat]

Yes. You are. Because ethics lapses by State actors who are empowered to such an asymmetric degree, demand it.

If exculpatory evidence is destroyed, adverse inference demands the court infer that that evidence be viewed in the worst light for the destroyer of the evidence, which in this case is the State. It really doesn't matter what was on that disk at this point. Now that the chain of evidence has been destroyed, we have to assume it truly was exculpatory.

Just as we'd assume a defendant destroying evidence would indicate it was so damning the jury should assume it was just the thing the State needed to prove their case.

Good of the goose, good of the gander. No self-referential inconsistency.

[teakettle42]

Is the prevailing goal of our justice system to convict this one particular defendant, or to ensure that trials are as fair as possible for all defendants?