tests revealed levels of toxins in the soil which were within the statutory limits just a short time after the Commonwealth’s tests revealed the opposite, it would certainly have buttressed Appellees’ argument that the tests do not provide consistent results sufficient to prove Appellees’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and provided Appellees with a reasonable opportunity to contest the Commonwealth’s evidence. Under Trombetta, nothing more is required. See Trombetta, supra (noting the defendants had "alternative means of demonstrating their innocence”); Elmore v. Foltz, 768 F.2d 773, 778 (6th Cir.1985) (under Trombetta, what "matters is that some reasonable alternative means exists for attempting to do what one would have attempted to do with the destroyed evidence”); Haywood, supra (<HOLDING>); Revolorio-Ramo, supra (holding the
holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof and that such a disposition does not violate the due process clause holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that where a photograph of a defendant wearing a particular shirt exists the destruction of the shirt does not violate due process holding that theft by prison guards does not violate due process when postdeprivation remedy exists holding that states inadvertent or negligent destruction of evidence did not violate defendants due process rights