Opinion ID: 3033144
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: I. Super. Ct. R. 123(a)(5) states:

Text: (a)(5) Filing of Complaint. The Attorney General shall prepare a complaint form to be completed and filed with the Court prior to the Initial Appearance. The complaint shall recite the charge, the applicable statutory citation, and shall otherwise comply with the requirements of Superior Court Rule 121. It shall be sworn to prior to commencement of the Initial Appearance Hearing, and copies made available to all interested parties. We note that Pereira does not contend that the charging document itself was unsworn, but rather that the officer who signed the affidavit could not properly have sworn to the affidavit. 8 information from validly initiating criminal proceedings against Pereira within the statute of limitations. This is not to say that the government does not have to prove probable cause; it simply is not required to do so at the filing of a charging information. The Superior Court did not commit plain error and the Appellate Division correctly rejected Pereira’s statute of limitations argument. C. Pre-Accusation Delay Pereira alleges that the Government’s delay violated his due process rights because by the time the information was filed he could no longer remember where he was on the night of the shooting and was unable to find witnesses to support his alibi defense. To prevail on a due process claim based on the government’s delay in filing an information, a defendant must prove both that the government intentionally delayed filing charges to gain a tactical advantage and that he was actually prejudiced by the delay. United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 192, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984); United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325-26, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). Pereira has not provided any evidence to substantiate his allegation that the government intentionally delayed filing the information to gain a tactical advantage. In an attempt to satisfy the second prong of the test, the “actual prejudice” requirement, Pereira claims that he suffered actual prejudice because he does not remember where he was on the night of the shooting and was unable to obtain witnesses to support an alibi defense. However, we have explained that “contentions that the memories of witnesses [have] faded as a result of 9 the delay fall[] short of the requisite showing of actual prejudice.” United States v. Sebetich, 776 F.2d 412, 430 (3d Cir. 1985) (citing Marion, 404 U.S. at 325-26). Hence, Pereira’s alleged memory lapse is insufficient to establish actual prejudice. As Pereira has failed to establish either intent or prejudice, the Appellate Division correctly concluded that the government’s delay did not violate his due process rights.