Did the police's bad-faith-handling-of-evidence deny the defendant due-process-and-fair-trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. The police violate State criminal law, Federal and State regulations, and their own procedures and policies in disposing of and failing to preserve evidence. Does this conduct show bad faith on the part of the police; and, under these circumstances, is the defendant denied Due Process of law and a fair trial? (Implicating Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988)) 2. When the State produces evidence to the defense but objects to its use during trial because there is no one who can authenticate it, are a defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, substantive Due Process rights and a defendant’s right to present a complete defense violated? (Implicating Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1972) and Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986)) 3. Investigating officers place a KC ballcap and an LSU ballcap in the Evidence Room, as evidence found at the crime scene. The KC ballcap is seen in the crime scene photographs atop the dead driver’s head. The LSU ballcap is not visible in the crime scene photographs but is documented by the investigating officers as having been atop the driver’s head, under the KC ballcap. The KC ballcap has one bullet hole in it, whereas the LSU ballcap has two bullet holes in it—neither of which lines up with the hole in the KC ballcap. These two ballcaps were crucial to showing how badly the crime scene and evidence were handled by the police. But the defendant was denied the use of the LSU ballcap during trial because there were no photographs showing it at the scene of the crime. Did the exclusion of the LSU ballcap deny the defendant his rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant’s right to a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment and a defendant’s right to present a complete defense? (Implicating Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1972) and Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986)) i