Gray v. Lowe & Pattison

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the appropriate remedy for “destruction of evidence is left to the lower court’s discretion”
• upholding military judge’s exclusion of evidence where it was obtained contrary to the provisions of a regulation intended to confer a right on servicemembers
• failed to follow California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984), and Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), with regard to the destruction of evidence
• lower court did not abuse discretion by suppressing evidence to remedy Government’s loss of urine sample
• drug convictions based exclusively on urinalysis evidence require careful scrutiny by factfinders and appellate courts
• failure to follow supplement to Army Regulation led to suppression of evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).