Defense urges Washington Supreme Court to adopt objective "bad faith" test after jail tape overwritten

SEATTLE — The Washington State Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in State of Washington v. Rodney Joseph Yeager over whether prosecutors and law enforcement should be held to an objective standard of "bad faith" when potentially exculpatory evidence is destroyed.

Maya Ramakrishnan, counsel for petitioner Rodney Yeager, told the justices that "when the government destroys evidence in its possession before anyone gets a chance to see it, it is almost impossible for the accused to prove the government's subjective motivations for doing so." She asked the court to "clarify that bad faith should be determined objectively based on the information available to the government at the time that the evidence is destroyed" and to reverse the Court of Appeals and dismiss Yeager's convictions with prejudice because a jail video was overwritten despite "multiple objective reasons to know that the evidence had potential exculpatory value."

Ramarkrishnan argued the defense bears the initial burden to show that the evidence had potential exculpatory value and that the state had control over it, after which an objective assessment of what the state knew should determine bad faith. She told the court that "a video that jurors could see for themselves" is qualitatively different from testimony or a curative instruction and that, in this case, jurors were deprived of the chance to view facial expressions and body language relevant to whether complaining witnesses appeared afraid.

Devin Waldman, arguing for the State, said the trial court had properly found no bad faith and urged the court to reaffirm a subjective standard consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Waldman described the facts: the footage "only records video, no audio," the jail operated under a neutral 60-day retention policy, and there was no evidence that anyone deliberately destroyed the video to suppress exculpatory material. "There is no evidence, none, anyone destroyed the video to suppress exculpatory evidence," Waldman said.

Justices pressed both sides on legal tests from Youngblood and related federal and state decisions, whether state constitutional protections could provide broader remedies, and whether adopting an objective standard would effectively constitutionalize routine administrative losses. Counsel and justices also debated whether prosecutors or local administrative structures bore responsibility for communicating preservation requests to the jail; the State described Cowlitz County's chain of communication and the reality that the prosecutor's office did not directly send the retention request to the jail.

Ramarkrishnan emphasized the defendant's practical inability to cross-examine officers about the unseen conduct: "There is nothing for the defense to do in this situation. There's no reasonable way for the accused to cross-examine the officers about an incident that he has no information about." She repeated the request that the court reverse and dismiss the convictions with prejudice.

The State responded that multiple witnesses testified, that credibility can be tested through cross-examination, and that changing the standard would risk converting negligence or routine administrative errors into constitutional violations. The justices asked pointed questions about the facts here — including that there were four witnesses, that the footage was overwritten pursuant to policy, and that the investigating deputy followed up only after the footage had been overwritten.

The court took the matter under submission after counsel finished argument and recessed for 10 minutes. No decision was announced from the bench.

What happens next: The Supreme Court will issue an opinion resolving whether Washington should apply an objective knowledge test for bad-faith destruction of evidence, whether the convictions should be dismissed with prejudice, or whether the existing subjective standard remains controlling.