Court Opinion

ID: 9469519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:42:51.331587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:25.999764
License: Public Domain

POOLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion because I believe that the result here is dictated by the literal terms of Rule 9, which only permits the state to show prejudice “in its ability to respond to the petition.” However, I write separately to express my view that the Rule as interpreted does not conform to the realities of the criminal justice system.
It seems utterly unrealistic to suggest that the state may raise the prejudice it has suffered in responding to the petition caused by petitioner’s delay, but that it may not raise the prejudice it will suffer in attempting to retry the underlying charges against him. The principles of equitable estoppel animating Rule 9 apply equally well to the difficulties faced by the state in any retrial as to any problems it may have in responding to petitioner’s specific claims. Indeed, as demonstrated by this case, the difficulties involved in marshalling evidence for a retrial, including dispersal of witnesses, faulty memory and unwillingness to testify may often be more significant than the task of meeting petitioner’s specific allegations.
Since Rule 9 does not take into account those difficulties, the situation should be called to the attention of the Judicial Conference of the United States so that it may consider modifying the rule to take into account prejudice on retrial.