Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Physical Spoliation of Evidence: When It Doesn't Matter

By Elliott B. Oppenheim
November 01, 2003

Physical unavailability of evidence can influence litigation, but for various reasons, the courts will not always draw an adverse inference against the party that has lost or destroyed such evidence. One of these reasons is simple relevance. A case in point is Kanyi v. United States, 2001 U.S. Dist LEXIS 19814, in which the plaintiff appealed a Magistrate Judge's order denying a motion for an adverse inference charge against defendants. The court found that even though defendants had destroyed evidence, their actions were at most merely negligent, and besides, the evidence in question was immaterial to the case.

Kanyi v. United States

In Kanyi, the police caught the defendant William Kanyi (plaintiff, in the action) attempting to import bags of heroin into the United States. Kanyi, a so-called “drug mule,” was attempting on March 30, 1998, to import 51 bags of heroin he had swallowed. He had ingested the bags before boarding a flight to New York from his home country of Ghana. On his arrival at JFK International Airport, agents of the U.S. Customs Service stopped Kanyi and searched him. During the search, Kanyi admitted that he had swallowed the heroin. He was therefore transferred to the airport medical facility, where x-rays confirmed the presence of bags containing some substance in his alimentary tract.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?