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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 v. Zamoragreen2 sentences2021(See, e.g., Kyles v. Whitely (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 446, fn. 15 [granting a new trial on a petition for habeas corpus where material evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, and noting generally that the “probative force of evidence 36 depends on the circumstances in which it was obtained” and “indications of conscientious police work will enhance probative force and slovenly work will diminish it.”]; United States v. Sager (9th Cir. 2000) 227 F.3d 1138, 1145 [error for judge to instruct “the jury not to ‘grade’ the investigation” conducted by the postal investigators in a mail theft case]; U 2013(See People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 811 ; People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 96 .) However, absent bad faith, a defendant is not entitled to any sanction, including an adverse-inference jury instruction, even when such an instruction is specifically requested: “Although an adverse instruction may be a proper response to a due process violation [citation], there was no such violation in this case. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sassouniangreen1 sentence2021(See, e.g., Kyles v. Whitely (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 446, fn. 15 [granting a new trial on a petition for habeas corpus where material evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, and noting generally that the “probative force of evidence 36 depends on the circumstances in which it was obtained” and “indications of conscientious police work will enhance probative force and slovenly work will diminish it.”]; United States v. Sager (9th Cir. 2000) 227 F.3d 1138, 1145 [error for judge to instruct “the jury not to ‘grade’ the investigation” conducted by the postal investigators in a mail theft case]; U | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Julius Paul Sagergreen1 sentence2021(See, e.g., Kyles v. Whitely (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 446, fn. 15 [granting a new trial on a petition for habeas corpus where material evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, and noting generally that the “probative force of evidence 36 depends on the circumstances in which it was obtained” and “indications of conscientious police work will enhance probative force and slovenly work will diminish it.”]; United States v. Sager (9th Cir. 2000) 227 F.3d 1138, 1145 [error for judge to instruct “the jury not to ‘grade’ the investigation” conducted by the postal investigators in a mail theft case]; U | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Victor Sivillagreen1 sentence2021(See, e.g., Kyles v. Whitely (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 446, fn. 15 [granting a new trial on a petition for habeas corpus where material evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, and noting generally that the “probative force of evidence 36 depends on the circumstances in which it was obtained” and “indications of conscientious police work will enhance probative force and slovenly work will diminish it.”]; United States v. Sager (9th Cir. 2000) 227 F.3d 1138, 1145 [error for judge to instruct “the jury not to ‘grade’ the investigation” conducted by the postal investigators in a mail theft case]; U | 1 | 1 |
Kyles v. Whitleygreen1 sentence2021(See, e.g., Kyles v. Whitely (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 446, fn. 15 [granting a new trial on a petition for habeas corpus where material evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, and noting generally that the “probative force of evidence 36 depends on the circumstances in which it was obtained” and “indications of conscientious police work will enhance probative force and slovenly work will diminish it.”]; United States v. Sager (9th Cir. 2000) 227 F.3d 1138, 1145 [error for judge to instruct “the jury not to ‘grade’ the investigation” conducted by the postal investigators in a mail theft case]; U | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zapienred1 sentence2013The trial court was not required to impose any sanction, including jury instructions.” (Cooper, at p. 811.) Significantly, in reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court in Cooper observed the trial court’s refusal to give an adverse inference instruction did not leave the defendant helpless: The trial court properly permitted the defendant to “take his ‘best shot’ before the jury, and present evidence regarding deficiencies in the investigation to try to 5 discredit the case against him. ‘This was adequate to insure a fair hearing and was itself a sufficient sanction.’” (Cooper, at pp. 811-81 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Morales
green
2 sentences2025(Morales, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 44 .) F. Lost Evidence Davis contends the trial court violated his due process right by denying his motion to dismiss for failure to preserve evidence, his alternative request for an adverse inference jury instruction, and his motion for new trial. 2024(Morales, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 44 .) F. Lost Evidence Davis contends the trial court violated his due process right by denying his motion to dismiss for failure to preserve evidence, his alternative request for an adverse inference jury instruction, and his motion for new trial. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Wimberly
green
1 sentence2021(See, e.g., Kyles v. Whitely (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 446, fn. 15 [granting a new trial on a petition for habeas corpus where material evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, and noting generally that the “probative force of evidence 36 depends on the circumstances in which it was obtained” and “indications of conscientious police work will enhance probative force and slovenly work will diminish it.”]; United States v. Sager (9th Cir. 2000) 227 F.3d 1138, 1145 [error for judge to instruct “the jury not to ‘grade’ the investigation” conducted by the postal investigators in a mail theft case]; U | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Cook
green
1 sentence2020We have held that such an instruction “need not be given where . . . no bad faith failure to preserve the evidence was shown.” (People v. Cook (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1334, 1351 .) We therefore reject this argument as well. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
California v. Trombetta
green
1 sentence2020On this issue we find no error. 1 California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 (Trombetta). 1 BACKGROUND A. Charged Offenses The Sonoma County District Attorney charged Berg with making criminal threats (Pen. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Cooper
green
1 sentence2013(See People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 811 ; People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 96 .) However, absent bad faith, a defendant is not entitled to any sanction, including an adverse-inference jury instruction, even when such an instruction is specifically requested: “Although an adverse instruction may be a proper response to a due process violation [citation], there was no such violation in this case. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.