Peter Reed v. Micheal Cate

MEMORANDUM

Peter Joseph Reed appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas relief from his California state court conviction of voluntary manslaughter. We issued a certificate of appealability with respect to “whether the state violated [Reed’s] right to due process by suppressing or failing to preserve firearm and/or ammunition evidence.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(3); Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 , 109 S.Ct. 333 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a), and we affirm.

Before trial, Reed moved to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that the state violated his right to due process when an investigating officer purchased ammunition evidence from the decedent’s wife and then lost or disposed of it. Reed argued that the material was potentially exculpatory because testing could have shown that the victim’s bullets matched those used in the shooting, bolstering Reed’s self-defense theory. The state trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found that although the officer failed to preserve the material, he did not do so in bad faith as required to…