Whether, as many courts have held, allowing a prosecution to continue after lengthy and demonstrably prejudicial delay in filing criminal charges offends due process, even absent prosecutorial intent to gain a tactical advantage or harass, where the prosecution cannot provide an explanation for the delay sufficient to justify the extent of the prejudice suffered by the defendant?

Question Presented In United States v. Lovasco, this Court instructed lower courts to apply “the settled principles of due process...to the particular circumstances of individual cases” in order to assess “the constitutional significance of various reasons for [prejudicial preindictment] delay.” 431 U.S. 783, 796-97 (1977). But the Tenth Circuit will not find a due process violation unless a defendant proves both prejudice and that the government intentionally delayed bringing charges for the purpose of obtaining a tactical advantage or to harass. The question presented in this case is: Whether, as many courts have held, allowing a prosecution to continue after lengthy and demonstrably prejudicial delay in filing criminal charges offends due process, even absent prosecutorial intent to gain a tactical advantage or harass, where the prosecution cannot provide an explanation for the delay sufficient to justify the extent of the prejudice suffered by the defendant? ii