Opinion ID: 1608760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prosecutorial Delay.

Text: Brown also believes that the State unreasonably delayed his prosecution for Wingler's murder in violation of his due process rights. [5] During this period of delay, he asserts, evidence was lost and witnesses that might have exonerated him died or disappeared. Because a claim of pre-accusatorial delay implicates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, we review de novo. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; State v. Trompeter, 555 N.W.2d 468, 470 (Iowa 1996). Although [t]here is no constitutional right to be arrested and charged at the precise moment probable cause comes into existence, the government cannot delay filing charges to intentionally `gain [a] tactical advantage over the accused' without implicating the Due Process Clause. Trompeter, 555 N.W.2d at 470 (citation omitted). To prevail on a claim that such a delay violated due process, a defendant has the heavy burden of proving both (1) the defendant's defense suffered actual prejudice due to a delay in prosecution and (2) the delay causing such prejudice was unreasonable. [6] See id. To establish actual prejudice, a defendant must show loss of evidence or testimony has meaningfully impaired his ability to present a defense. State v. Edwards, 571 N.W.2d 497, 501 (Iowa Ct.App.1997). Generalized claims of prejudice, such as loss of memory, loss of witnesses, or loss of evidence do not constitute actual prejudice. Id. Brown has failed to prove actual prejudice arising from the delay in his prosecution. Instead, he merely offered generalized claims that are insufficient to establish a due process violation. See id. Brown presented an expert on robbery and robbery homicide investigations who outlined a number of concerns raised by the delay in Brown's prosecution in his testimony in support of the motion to dismiss made by Brown prior to his stipulation. The expert indicated there were five or six people he thought would have pertinent information that could no longer be located or were deceased. In addition, the expert indicated that some physical evidence in the case, including the car seat in which Wingler's body was found and the coat Wingler was wearing the night of his murder, had disappeared over time. In the course of his testimony, however, the expert was unable to state how the missing witnesses or physical evidence meaningfully impaired [Brown's] ability to present a defense. Id. Instead, the expert offered only generalized claims of prejudice arising from the loss of witnesses and evidence. Id. The expert believed that further discovery of the missing witnesses and physical evidence could have produced information that might have served to impeach other evidence in the case against Brown. He even expressed the possibility that the missing witnesses or evidence would have exonerated Brown. However, these types of claims and beliefs are insufficient to establish actual prejudice arising from the delay in the prosecution. They are too general to support a finding of actual prejudice. Accordingly, Brown has failed to establish the first requirement in proving his due process claim, and it is unnecessary to consider the second requirement. We find Brown was not deprived of his due process rights by the delay in the prosecution of his case.