Opinion ID: 1257787
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prejudice Must Be Substantial

Text: Given our decision to depart from the previously established approach for analyzing whether preindictment delay resulted in a due process violation, a hearing will be necessary to determine whether Petitioner can demonstrate that actual prejudice has resulted from the delay. As the Fourth Circuit held in Jones, a defendant is required to introduce evidence of actual substantial prejudice to establish that his case has been prejudiced by preindictment delay. This is a heavy burden because it requires not only that a defendant show actual prejudice, as opposed to mere speculative prejudice,... but also that he show that any actual prejudice was substantial that he was meaningfully impaired in his ability to defend against the state's charges to such an extent that the disposition of the criminal proceeding was likely affected. 94 F.3d at 907 (emphasis in original). Dimming memories and the passage of time alone are insufficient to establish the level of prejudice necessary to show the denial of due process. Marion, 404 U.S. at 326, 92 S.Ct. 455; accord U.S. v. McDougal, 133 F.3d 1110, 1113 (8th Cir.1998) (stating that the mere `loss of or impairment of memories does not constitute actual prejudice for purposes of the [D]ue [P]rocess [C]lause'); U.S. v. Beszborn, 21 F.3d 62, 67 (5th Cir. 1994) (recognizing that [v]ague assertions of lost witnesses, faded memories, or misplaced documents are insufficient to establish a due process violation from pre-indictment delay). Where the alleged prejudice stems from the unavailability of witnesses, the Fourth Circuit explained in Jones what type of evidence is typically required: [C]ourts have generally required that the defendant identify the witness he would have called; demonstrate, with specificity, the expected content of that witness' testimony; establish to the court's satisfaction that he has made serious attempts to locate the witness; and, finally, show that the information the witness would have provided was not available from other sources. 94 F.3d at 908; see also U.S. v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748, 752 (2nd Cir.1999) (recognizing that actual prejudice is commonly demonstrated by the loss of documentary evidence or the unavailability of a key witness); U.S. v. Scoggins, 992 F.2d 164, 167 (8th Cir.1993) (holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness' testimony not available from other sources); Sabath, 990 F.Supp. at 1014 (finding combination of lost evidence, impaired memories of fact witnesses, flawed governmental reports, and deceased key witnesses have combined to plague Defendant with just the kind of concrete and substantial prejudice that the Due Process Clause was designed to remedy).