Opinion ID: 1257787
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirement of Actual Prejudice

Text: The need to prove actual prejudice to demonstrate a due process violation based on preindictment delay was first recognized by this Court in Hundley. Citing to our decisions in Hey and Richey, we stated: In these cases, as well as those that have followed them, we have focused on the length of the delay, the reason for it, and, more importantly, whether there was actual prejudice to the defendant's case. Hundley, 181 W.Va. at 382, 382 S.E.2d at 576 (emphasis supplied). Under the new point of law established in Hundley, we required a defendant seeking to demonstrate a due process violation to prove that the preindictment delay caused him actual prejudice in presenting his defense. Id. at 380, 382 S.E.2d at 574, syl. pt. 2, in part (emphasis supplied). Although we clearly confirmed that actual prejudice was required to demonstrate a due process violation in Hundley, we did not appreciate the attendant obligation to revisit our earlier ruling in Hey. After a thorough reconsideration of this issue, we are convinced that our ruling in Hey, which permits the use of presumptive prejudice to establish a due process violation based on preindictment delay, is contrary to the clear weight of authority throughout this country. Courts are uniformly in agreement that actual prejudice must be proven to advance a due process claim for preindictment delay. See Jones, 94 F.3d at 906-907. Accordingly, we hold that in order to maintain that preindictment delay violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution, the defendant must show actual prejudice. To the extent our prior decisions in Hey, Hundley, and their progeny are inconsistent with this holding, they are expressly overruled.