Harned v. Evanston Municipal Officers Electoral Board

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because the defendant was in an accident and his blood was drawn for purposes of medical treatment, evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol test results was admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e)
• explaining that “the government’s failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence violates a criminal defendant’s due process rights if the defendant can show bad faith on the part of the government”
• stating that officers have no obligation to develop evidence for the defense
• discussing “the court’s inherent authority to instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case”
• discussing “the court's inherent authority to instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case”
• opining, “The language of MCL 257.625a does not reveal that the Legislature intended to impose the drastic remedy of dismissal or suppression of the evidence when an officer fails to give a defendant a reasonable opportunity for an independent chemical test.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).