In United States v. Cooper (9th Cir. 1993) 983 F.2d 928, the defendants were charged with offenses related to the manufacture of methamphetamine. The defendants operated a small chemical laboratory which they claimed was a legitimate lab used to manufacture various legal chemical products. The Drug Enforcement Agency seized their equipment and the prosecution failed to preserve it for trial. (Cooper, supra, 983 F.2d at pp. 929-930.) At trial, there was conflicting testimony by prosecution and defense experts as to whether the lab equipment could be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. One of the defendants testified the manufacturing vessel was a low-grade stainless steel and had rubber gaskets, which would be destroyed at the high temperatures required for methamphetamine manufacture. The defense expert also said he could not reach any firm conclusions without examining the equipment. (Cooper, supra, 983 F.2d at p. 930.) A prosecution witness testified he designed the vessel and specified a high grade stainless steel and no rubber gaskets. However, the expert also testified he did not know if the defendants' vessel was built to specifications, and the defendants testified they purchased the vessel second hand and reconfigured it. (Id. at p. 931.) The trial court ultimately granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the federal court of appeals affirmed, holding that the government's bad-faith failure to preserve the laboratory equipment violated due process. (Cooper, supra, 983 F.2d at p. 932.) Unlike in the instant case, in Cooper, supra, it was undisputed on appeal that the potential exculpatory value of the seized laboratory equipment was apparent before its destruction. It was also undisputed in Cooper that the police acted in bad faith by allowing the equipment to be destroyed. The only issue raised on appeal in Cooper was whether the defendants could reasonably obtain evidence comparable in value to the destroyed laboratory equipment. The court in Cooper concluded comparable evidence could not be provided. (Cooper, supra, 983 F.2d at p. 932.)