Opinion ID: 338465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inability to Recall Events

Text: 14 Each defendant claimed prejudice resulting from an inability to recall the events which formed the basis for the charges against him. However, a claim merely of general inability to reconstruct the events of the period in question is insufficient to establish the requisite prejudice for reversal based on denial of due process. United States v. Atkins, 487 F.2d 257, 259 (8th Cir. 1973). 5 See also United States v. Emory, 468 F.2d 1017, 1020 (8th Cir. 1972); United States v. Golden, 436 F.2d 941, 943 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 910, 92 S.Ct. 236, 30 L.Ed.2d 183 (1971). We do not exclude the possibility that an extended delay resulting from calculated and intentional tactics by the prosecution in an effort to impede the defense coupled with a resulting inability of the defendant to recall events may cause the balance to be struck in favor of the defendant on the issue of prejudice; but this is not such a case. We have reviewed the testimony of Quinn given prior to the District Court's suggestion of the possibility of dismissal for preindictment delay at a hearing on a motion to suppress and find that he exhibited an ability to recall events surrounding the execution of the search warrant in September, 1974. While he was able to recall these events in some detail, he claimed that he could not recall events in the Spring of the same year. We think that such generalized contentions are insubstantial and speculative and as such are inadequate to satisfy Quinn's burden of affirmatively demonstrating prejudice. 6 15 Wilson testified that he was able to recall the sale of two of the guns to the agents but denied any criminal intent or knowledge that the guns were stolen. His knowledge of certain of the events within the time frame weakens his claim of failing memory as a basis for substantial prejudice. 16 The District Court properly reflected its concern about the length of time which elapsed from the time the investigations had been completed until the initiation of prosecution. We conclude, however, that upon the record before us substantial prejudice has not been demonstrated and that the findings of the District Court in this regard are clearly erroneous. 7 17 The judgments of dismissal are reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Court with instructions to reinstate the indictments in each case. 18