Opinion ID: 3026445
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government’s Pre-Indictment Delay

Text: With respect to the District Court’s denial of Ladson’s motion to dismiss the indictment for allegedly unconstitutional delay, we review the court’s findings concerning intentional delay and actual prejudice for clear error. United States v. Ismaili, 828 F.2d 153, 169 (3d Cir. 1987). Although the statute of limitations is the “primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges,” United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971), it “does not fully define the [defendant’s] rights with respect to the events occurring prior to indictment.” Id. at 324. Regardless of the statute of limitations, a pre-indictment delay can be considered a due process violation warranting dismissal of the indictment if the defendant can prove both “(1) that the government intentionally delayed bringing the indictment in order to gain some advantage over him, and that (2) this intentional delay caused the defendant actual prejudice.” Ismaili, 828 F.2d at 167 (citing Marion, 404 U.S. at 325). In attempting to prove the first prong, i.e., intentional delay, Ladson first points us to the three-plus years of government inaction between the completion of the investigation and the return of the indictment. Ladson then surmises that it is “obvious” that this delay was intentional and designed to gain a tactical advantage because the prosecution offered no explanation for the delay at the motion to dismiss hearing. This is the entirety of Ladson’s argument regarding intent. 5 While it is true that the prosecutor offered no definite explanation, there is nothing in the record to suggest a nefarious purpose on the part of the government. AUSA Thomas Perricone advised the court that he had been first assigned to the case a week before it was indicted, that he had no first-hand knowledge of the history of the case or the reason for the delay, that his understanding was that the people previously assigned to the case did not indict because of other pressing responsibilities, and that the case was reassigned to him in order to secure an indictment before the statute of limitations expired. Ladson responded simply by arguing that the circumstantial evidence, i.e., the three-year delay, was enough by itself to meet his burden of proof regarding intent. The District Court disagreed. We cannot say that the District Court committed clear error in making this factual finding.1