Charles Edward Davis v. Peter J. Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County

The District Court originally granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus, having found that Davis had been deprived of a fair trial by the failure of the prosecution to disclose a laboratory report containing potentially exculpatory evidence. After this Court affirmed that decision in an unreported opinion, the State commenced preparation for a retrial. It was then discovered that certain physical evidence which was the subject of the laboratory report and which all had assumed was still in existence had been destroyed during the course of a routine disposal of old evidence. The State nonetheless proceeded to press the prosecution, and the State trial court denied Davis either a dismissal of the charges or a stay of proceedings while he proceeded in the State appellate courts.

Davis then moved the District Court to modify the conditional writ and make it absolute, contending that the destruction of the physical evidence made it impossible for him to conduct certain sophisticated scientific tests which potentially could have established that he was not the perpetrator of the crime with which he was charged. The District Court first stayed the State trial until the…

(concurring):

While I concur in the foregoing opinion, I do believe it would have been better practice to have let the State’s second trial go through to a conclusion before ordering the writ to issue.

518 F.2d 141 Charles Edward DAVIS, Petitioner, Appellee, v. Peter J. PITCHESS, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Respondent, Appellant. No. 74-1809. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Dec. 9, 1974. Shunji Asari, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent, appellant. Richard Wasserstrom (argued), Santa Monica, Cal., for petitioner, appellee. OPINION Before CHAMBERS and ELY, Circuit Judges, and BALDWIN * Customs and Patent Judge. PER CURIAM: 1 The District Court originally granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus, having found that Davis had been deprived of a fair trial by the failure of the prosecution to disclose a laboratory report containing potentially exculpatory evidence. After this Court affirmed that decision in an unreported opinion, the State commenced preparation for a retrial. It was then discovered that certain physical evidence which was the subject of the laboratory report and which all had assumed was still in existence had been destroyed during the course of a routine disposal of old evidence. The State nonetheless proceeded to press the prosecution, and the State trial court denied Davis either a dismissal of the charges or a stay…