Arizona v. Youngblood

Arizona v. Youngblood was a 1988 decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning the limits of Constitutional due process under criminal law.

Background
A boy was molested and sodomized. The rape kit was preserved in a refrigerator, but the boy's clothes (containing samples of the assailant's semen) were not preserved in a refrigeration unit. At a later date, criminologists were unable to do testing on the clothing because it had deteriorated as a result of not being refrigerated. The boy picked the defendant out of a photo lineup as his assailant.

Result
Relying on United States v. Marion and United States v. Lovasco, the Court reasoned that "failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law" unless "a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police."

Aftermath
In 2000, on request from Youngblood's attorneys, the police department tested the degraded evidence using newer, more sophisticated DNA technology. Those results exonerated Youngblood, and he was released from prison in August 2000, and charges were dismissed.

Shortly thereafter, the DNA profile from the evidence was entered into the national convicted offender databases. In early 2001, officials got a hit, matching the profile of Walter Cruise, who was then serving time in Texas on unrelated charges. In August 2002, Cruise was convicted of the crime and sentenced to twenty-four years in prison.