Rogoff Vs. Marsh

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the defendants’ convictions in light of evidence tampering because the defendants confessed to possessing a controlled substance and there were positive field tests on the alleged controlled substance
• even without a laboratory test, an independent field test and confession support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance
• “prejudice occurs if there is a reasonable probability that . . . the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
• misconduct of crime lab chemist during other tests in other cases could constitute only impeachment evidence
• where evidence showed that chemist began stealing heroin from drug lab one year after he conducted tests of controlled substance that supported petitioners’ drug convictions, they were not entitled to new trial
• An independent field test and confession 30 No. 38278-8-III State v. Petek could support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance after lab tests were excluded due to the misconduct of a state chemist.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).