evidence already collected. For example, the Alaskan Court of Appeals recently stated that [w]hile officers have a duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence actually gathered during a criminal investigation, the due process clause has never required officers to undertake a state-of-the-art investigation of all reported crimes. Officers investigating a crime need not “track down every conceivable investigative lead and seize every scintilla of evidence regardless of its apparent importance or lack of importance at the time, or run the risk of denying a defendant due process or his discovery rights.” March, 859 P.2d at 716 (quoting Nicholson v. State, 570 P.2d 1058, 1064 (Alaska 1977)); see also, People v. Bradley, 159 Cal.App.3d 399, 205 Cal.Rptr. 485, 489-90 (Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). Bradley, a case factually similar to the
holding that the issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims holding that trial court may not consider whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail holding that the police do not have to gather up everything that might ultimately prove helpful to the defense holding that a two month period might be enough  to prove the causation prong holding that courts must consider any adverse effect that the prosecutors failure to disclose might have had on not only the presentation of the defense at trial but the preparation of the defense as well