Whether the lack of reasonable justification for an excessively delayed prosecution must be considered when the accused, at no fault of their own, suffers actual prejudice due to the prosecution's failure to provide notice of potentially capital charges?

QUESTION PRESENTED Due Process alone protects against excessive preindictment delay in the absence of applicable statute of limitations. See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) and United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 788 (1977). In California, no statute of limitations applies to potentially capital murder charges, but such cases also require more robust constitutional protections to ensure reliability. See Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 305 (1976). Here though, no reasonable or reliable justification explained the prosecution’s disregard of known circumstances suggesting an appreciable risk that a delay of nearly 17-years would, and did, impair petitioner, BRADLEY HOOVER’, ability to mount an effective (alibi) defense. The issue presented is therefore: Whether the lack of reasonable justification for an excessively delayed prosecution must be considered when the accused, at no fault of their own, suffers actual prejudice due to the prosecution’s failure to provide notice of potentially capital charges?