United States v. Lovasco
431 U.S. 783 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not violated by a pre-indictment delay undertaken in good faith for investigative purposes, even if the defendant suffers some prejudice as a result of the delay.
Facts:
- Between July 25 and August 31, 1973, Eugene Lovasco allegedly possessed and sold eight firearms that had been stolen from the United States mails.
- Within a month of the alleged offenses, Lovasco admitted to government investigators that he had possessed and sold five of the stolen guns.
- During this initial period, investigators also developed strong evidence linking Lovasco to the other three firearms.
- The government's investigation continued as it explored the possibility that Lovasco's son, a mail handler, was responsible for the initial theft.
- During the subsequent 18-month period before an indictment was filed, two potential defense witnesses for Lovasco died.
- Lovasco claimed one deceased witness, Tom Stewart, was his source for the guns, and the other, his brother, had witnessed key transactions.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 6, 1975, a grand jury indicted Eugene Lovasco in the United States District Court.
- Lovasco filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the 18-month delay between the offense and the indictment violated his due process rights.
- The District Court held a hearing and granted Lovasco's motion, dismissing the indictment after finding the delay was prejudicial and unjustified.
- The Government appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The United States petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a more than 18-month pre-indictment delay, undertaken by the government to continue its investigation, violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, even if the defendant is prejudiced by the loss of potential witnesses during the delay?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. To prosecute a defendant following investigative delay does not violate the Due Process Clause, even if his defense might have been somewhat prejudiced by the lapse of time. The Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause is irrelevant to pre-indictment delay. While the Due Process Clause provides some protection against oppressive delay, proof of prejudice is a necessary but not sufficient element of such a claim; the court must also consider the reasons for the delay. Prosecutors are under no constitutional duty to file charges as soon as probable cause exists, as this would pressure them into filing premature or unwarranted charges and would hinder their ability to fully investigate complex criminal schemes. A delay for a legitimate investigative purpose, such as identifying all participants in a crime, is fundamentally different from a delay undertaken solely to gain a tactical advantage over the accused. In this case, the government's asserted reason for the delay—to continue investigating Lovasco's son—was a valid investigative purpose, not an improper tactical maneuver.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. When a lengthy and unexplained pre-indictment delay causes substantial prejudice to the defendant, the indictment should be dismissed. The majority improperly relies on the government's unsworn statements made in appellate briefs to find that there was an 'investigative purpose' for the delay. The record from the District Court hearing contains no evidence justifying the 18-month delay; rather, the lower courts made concurrent findings of fact that the delay was 'unexplained,' 'unnecessary and unreasonable.' Based on the formal record, the case involves a routine prosecution where the government, after assembling all its evidence, waited nearly 18 months to indict for no reason, causing prejudice to the defendant. This unexplained and prejudicial delay violates the fundamental constitutional right to speedy justice.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard established in United States v. Marion for due process challenges to pre-indictment delay. It establishes a high bar for defendants, requiring them to prove not only actual and substantial prejudice but also that the government's reason for the delay was improper, such as to gain a tactical advantage or to harass the defendant. By distinguishing legitimate 'investigative delay' from improper 'tactical delay,' the Court significantly protects prosecutorial discretion in determining the timing of an indictment, even at the cost of potential prejudice to the accused. The ruling solidifies the principle that the Due Process Clause is not a tool for courts to second-guess a prosecutor's judgment about when an investigation is complete.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Lovasco