United States v. Velvet Legrande, Iii

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Velvet Legrande, Iii

379 F. App'x 600

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 17, 2010

Docket09-10361

StatusUnpublished

This text of 379 F. App'x 600 (United States v. Velvet Legrande, Iii) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Velvet Legrande, Iii, 379 F. App'x 600 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Velvet Renard LeGrande III appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss based on the government’s failure to preserve evidence. Our review is de novo. See United States v. Cooper, 983 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1993). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and do not repeat them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Even assuming the destroyed evidence in this case was potentially exculpatory, there was comparable evidence to support LeGrande’s contentions that he and the *601 victim were friends, that nothing unusual occurred outside the housing unit prior to the assault and that LeGrande was not visibly carrying a weapon at that time. See Cooper-, 983 F.2d at 931 (evidence destruction does not violate due process if the defendant can “obtain comparable evidence”) (quotation marks omitted). In particular, the victim testified that Le-Grande would have had no reason to assault him and Investigator Zaragoza testified that “nothing unusual ... happened” in the video footage that was destroyed.

Further, the video was overwritten in accordance with prison policy and Le-Grande presented no evidence that the footage was deliberately destroyed in order to further the government’s case. See United States v. Estrada, 453 F.3d 1208, 1212-13 (9th Cir.2006) (no bad faith absent the government’s “malicious intent”); United States v. Barton, 995 F.2d 931, 936 (9th Cir.1993) (no bad faith where nothing suggested officers deliberately destroyed evidence for tactical gain); United States v. Heffington, 952 F.2d 275, 281 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that governmental compliance with “departmental procedure” supports finding that the government did not act in bad faith) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Velvet Renard LeGrande III appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss based on the government’s failure to preserve evidence. Our review is de novo. See United States v. Cooper, 983 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1993). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and do not repeat them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Even assuming the destroyed evidence in this case was potentially exculpatory, there was comparable evidence to support LeGrande’s contentions that he and the *601 victim were friends, that nothing unusual occurred outside the housing unit prior to the assault and that LeGrande was not visibly carrying a weapon at that time. See Cooper-, 983 F.2d at 931 (evidence destruction does not violate due process if the defendant can “obtain comparable evidence”) (quotation marks omitted). In particular, the victim testified that Le-Grande would have had no reason to assault him and Investigator Zaragoza testified that “nothing unusual ... happened” in the video footage that was destroyed.

Further, the video was overwritten in accordance with prison policy and Le-Grande presented no evidence that the footage was deliberately destroyed in order to further the government’s case. See United States v. Estrada, 453 F.3d 1208, 1212-13 (9th Cir.2006) (no bad faith absent the government’s “malicious intent”); United States v. Barton, 995 F.2d 931, 936 (9th Cir.1993) (no bad faith where nothing suggested officers deliberately destroyed evidence for tactical gain); United States v. Heffington, 952 F.2d 275, 281 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that governmental compliance with “departmental procedure” supports finding that the government did not act in bad faith) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 F. App'x 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-velvet-legrande-iii-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack