Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Commonwealth v. Scher

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 20, 2002Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Saylor

Although I concur in the disposition announced by the Court, I do not fully agree with the lead opinion’s analysis and conclusion surrounding the prejudice component of Appellant’s due process claim.

The prejudice element of a due process claim based upon pre-arrest delay requires proof of both actual and substantial prejudice. See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324, 325-26, 92 S.Ct. 455, 465, 466, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971); Jones v. Angelone, 94 F.3d 900, 907 (4th Cir.1996). To establish actual prejudice a defendant cannot rely upon vague, speculative, or conclusory allegations. See…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. MarionSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. United States v. A. Guy Crouch, III and Michael J. FryeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
  3. United States v. John D. RogersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
  4. Benjamin Henderson Jones v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of VirginiaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
  5. United States v. BeszbornCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API