Opinion ID: 202136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cognizable Forms of Prejudice

Text: We have recognized two forms of possible prejudice. It is possible for delay to so impair a defendant's ability to present his appeal as to create prejudice to the appeal itself. Luciano-Mosquera, 63 F.3d at 1158. It also is possible that even where a defendant wins his appeal, the delay in preparing the transcripts on appeal could have prejudiced his right to make his case on retrial. Id. We see no impairment of Garcia’s ability to present his appeal. He was and has been present in this country and has had access to counsel.12 When we look as well at the substance of the arguments he has presented on appeal, the failure of those arguments has not in any way been caused by the delay. Since he has lost his appeal there can be no impairment of his rights on retrial. To the extent Garcia argues that any particular period -– here, a one-year delay from the original due date of the transcript 12 According to his reply brief, Garcia was still awaiting deportation as of December 29, 2005, six weeks prior to oral argument. We do not know whether his deportation has been delayed because of his appeal. We presume it has not, however, since Garcia did not request a stay of deportation from this court, and absent such a stay the government may deport an alien during the pendency of an appeal. See Neverson v. Farquharson, 366 F.3d 32, 38 (1st Cir. 2004) (The INS immediately took Neverson into custody and prepared to deport him . . . . On Neverson's emergency motion, this court issued a provisional stay . . . barring the INS from deporting Neverson until we could hear and decide his case.). Garcia suggests as much in his reply brief. -32- –- per se amounts to a due process violation, we reject the argument. This circuit's requirement is that the defendant must show prejudice, and we will not presume prejudice from the length of the delay. See Luciano-Mosquera, 63 F.3d at 1158; see also id. at 1158 & n.8 (describing approximately two-year delay in furnishing transcripts as appalling but rejecting defendant's claim for lack of prejudice); Pratt, 645 F.2d at 91 (declining to hold a nine-month delay unconstitutional, at least in the absence of exacerbating factors). There can be no per se rules on the length of delay because this court, in the exercise of its supervisory authority, is bound by the rule that a showing of prejudice is ordinarily needed for due process claims. See United States v. Tucker, 8 F.3d 673, 676 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc) ([A] federal court may not exercise its supervisory powers to reverse a conviction absent a showing of prejudice.).