Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People of Michigan v. Vicki Renee Dickinsongreen2 sentences2026“To warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.” People v Dickinson, 321 Mich App 1, 16 ; 909 NW2d 24 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026In Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83, 87 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held, “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” “To warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must prove that the -2- missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.” Dickinson, 321 Mich App at 16 ( | 3 | 12 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2019“In order to warrant reversal on the claimed due process violation, a defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.” People v Johnson, 197 Mich App 362, 365 ; 494 NW2d 873 (1992). 2019“In order to warrant reversal on the claimed due process violation, a defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.” People v Johnson, 197 Mich App 362, 365 ; 494 NW2d 873 (1992). | 1 | 6 |
Arizona v. Youngbloodgreen2 sentences2024See Arizona v Youngblood, 488 US 51, 58 ; 109 S Ct 333 ; 102 L Ed 2d 281 (1988) (“[U]nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.”); see also Dickinson, 321 Mich App at 16 (“To warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2024See Arizona v Youngblood, 488 US 51, 58 ; 109 S Ct 333 ; 102 L Ed 2d 281 (1988) (“[U]nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.”); see also Dickinson, 321 Mich App at 16 (“To warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 6 |
People v. Heftgreen2 sentences2025See also People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 79 ; 829 NW2d 266 (2012) (“If the defendant cannot show bad faith or that the evidence was potentially exculpatory, the state’s failure to preserve evidence does not deny the defendant due process.”). 2025See also People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 79 ; 829 NW2d 266 (2012) (“If the defendant cannot show bad faith or that the evidence was potentially exculpatory, the state’s failure to preserve evidence does not deny the defendant due process.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hanks
green
2 sentences2024ANALYSIS “To warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a ‘defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.’ ” People v Dickinson, 321 Mich App 1, 16 ; 909 NW2d 24 (2017), quoting People v Hanks, 276 Mich App 91, 95 ; 740 NW2d 530 (2007). 2024ANALYSIS “To warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a ‘defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.’ ” People v Dickinson, 321 Mich App 1, 16 ; 909 NW2d 24 (2017), quoting People v Hanks, 276 Mich App 91, 95 ; 740 NW2d 530 (2007). | 9 | 2016–2024 |
People v. Richards
green
2 sentences2018Regardless, “[t]o warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, ‘a defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.’ ” People v Richards, 315 Mich App 564, 581 ; 891 NW2d 911 (2016) (citation and emphasis omitted). 2018Regardless, “[t]o warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, ‘a defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.’ ” People v Richards, 315 Mich App 564, 581 ; 891 NW2d 911 (2016) (citation and emphasis omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2026In Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83, 87 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held, “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” “To warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must prove that the -2- missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.” Dickinson, 321 Mich App at 16 ( 2026In Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83, 87 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held, “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” “To warrant reversal on a claimed due-process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must prove that the -2- missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith.” Dickinson, 321 Mich App at 16 ( | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2019“Failure to preserve evidentiary material that may have exonerated the defendant will not constitute a denial of due process unless bad faith on the part of the police is shown.” People v Hunter, 201 Mich App 671, 677 ; 506 NW2d 611 (1993), citing Arizona v Youngblood, 488 US 51, 57 ; 109 S Ct 333 ; -7- 102 L Ed 2d 281 (1988). 2019“Failure to preserve evidentiary material that may have exonerated the defendant will not constitute a denial of due process unless bad faith on the part of the police is shown.” People v Hunter, 201 Mich App 671, 677 ; 506 NW2d 611 (1993), citing Arizona v Youngblood, 488 US 51, 57 ; 109 S Ct 333 ; -7- 102 L Ed 2d 281 (1988). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Stokes
green
2 sentences2016To meet the threshold of materiality, a defendant must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v Stokes, 312 Mich App 181, 190 ; 877 NW2d 752 (2015). -4- To warrant reversal on a claimed due process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith. . . . [W]hen the evidence is only “potentially useful” failure to preserve the evidence does not amount t 2016To meet the threshold of materiality, a defendant must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v Stokes, 312 Mich App 181, 190 ; 877 NW2d 752 (2015). -4- To warrant reversal on a claimed due process violation involving the failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must prove that the missing evidence was exculpatory or that law enforcement personnel acted in bad faith. . . . [W]hen the evidence is only “potentially useful” failure to preserve the evidence does not amount t | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Tumey v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1982Tumey, supra, In re Murchison, supra. A procedure which offers a "possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof require” violates due process of law. 1982Tumey v Ohio, supra, Crampton v Dep’t of State, supra. The fact that certain individuals would not be affected by the alleged interest does not resolve a claimed due process violation. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
In Re Murchison.
green
1 sentence1982Tumey, supra, In re Murchison, supra. A procedure which offers a "possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof require” violates due process of law. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.