In Supreme Court of New Jersey. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Michael CAHILL, Defendant–Respondent the discussed Prejudice stating the following:
“Defendant retained an attorney, who promptly filed a motion to dismiss the motor vehicle charges on the ground that the delay denied defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Defendant argued the unexplained delay, whether calculated from the date of arrest (twenty-nine months) or from the date of sentence on the indictable offense and notice of trial in the municipal court (sixteen months), was egregious. Although defendant did not assert that his ability to defend the charges was prejudiced, he explained that he had limited his search for employment to short-term positions or places where he would not be required to drive to work, and he had surrendered a job offer that would have required him to drive. He also asserted that he adjusted his job search to focus on a permanent position as time passed because he thought the prosecutor had abandoned the charges. Once he received the trial notice, he returned to his prior strategy of searching for short-term jobs with lower wages.
The State argued that the delay experienced in this case, when an indictment issues from conduct that includes driving while intoxicated, was not uncommon. The municipal prosecutor stated that he learned the indictable charge had been resolved on or about March 5, 2010, when the court administrator received a facsimile copy of the prosecutor’s November letter. The municipal prosecutor also argued that he had no record of a demand from defendant to set a trial date, that all assertions of prejudice were unsupported by a certification from defendant, and that defendant had retained his driving privileges since the accident and the initiation of charges in October 2007.
The trial judge also held that defendant had no obligation to inquire about a trial date or demand that his matter be scheduled for trial. In regard to prejudice, the judge held that it is not confined to “actual trial prejudice” but “can also be found from employment interruptions, anxiety, unresolved prosecution, drain on finances, and the like.” The judge accepted counsel’s contention that defendant suffered from anxiety while he awaited disposition of the driving-while-intoxicated charge and also suffered financially due to his need to prepare for the consequences of a driver’s license suspension. He accepted defendant’s assertion that he purposely accepted short-duration, lower-paying jobs due to his anticipated license suspension.
Furthermore, NJSBA contends that prejudice should be presumed when the delay is unreasonable. Finally, NJSBA urges that all charges arising from a motor vehicle offense like this one should be handled in the Superior Court. The Court said, [d]epending on the nature of the charges, the lower courts have generally found postaccusation delay “presumptively prejudicial” at least as it approaches one year. We note that, as the term is used in this threshold context, “presumptive prejudice” does not necessarily indicate a statistical probability of prejudice; it simply marks the point at which courts deem the delay unreasonable enough to trigger the Barker [i]nquiry.
A defendant does not have an obligation to assert his right to a speedy trial because he is under no obligation to bring himself to trial. Id. at 527, 92 S.Ct. at 2190, 33 L. Ed.2d at 115. Nevertheless, “[w]hether and how a defendant asserts his right is closely related” to the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and any prejudice suffered by the defendant. Id. at 531, 92 S.Ct. at 2192, 33 L. Ed.2d at 117. As such, the assertion of a right to a speedy trial in the face of continuing delays is a factor entitled to strong weight when determining whether the state has violated the right. Id. at 531–32, 92 S.Ct. at 2192–93, 33 L. Ed.2d at 117.
Finally, prejudice is assessed in the context of the interests the right is designed to protect. Id. at 532, 92 S.Ct. at 2193, 33 L. Ed.2d at 118. Those interests include prevention of oppressive incarceration, minimization of anxiety attributable to unresolved charges, and limitation of the possibility of impairment of the defense. Ibid. The final factor is prejudice. A speedy trial violation can be established without evidence of prejudice. Farrell, supra, 320 N.J.Super. at 446, 727 A.2d 501. Some authorities even suggest that every unresolved case carries with it some measure of anxiety. See, e.g ., State v. Szima, 70 N.J. 196, 206, 358 A.2d 773 (“[T]he defendant automatically endures ‘restraints on his liberty’ and lives ‘under a cloud of anxiety, suspicion, and often hostility.’ “ (quoting Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S.Ct. at 2193, 33 L. Ed.2d at 118)), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 896, 97 S.Ct. 259, 50 L. Ed.2d 180 (1976); Hanrahan v. United States, 348 F.2d 363, 366–67 (D.C.Cir.1965) ( “Speedy trial provisions seek ․ to minimize the anxiety and attendant evils which are invariably visited upon one under public accusation but not tried.”).
Defendant does not identify any particular prejudice to him. Instead, he outlines the employment choices he made in recognition of the impending suspension of his license to operate a motor vehicle. According to defendant, he sought short-term employment and positions that did not require a driver’s license or could be accessed by mass transportation or a ride from a friend. These self-imposed limitations narrowed his employment options and relegated him to lower-paying positions. We must assume that any person who has had limited involvement with the criminal justice system would experience some measure of anxiety by the existence of a pending and long-unresolved charge. This is particularly true when one of the sanctions, a license suspension, would have a dramatic impact on defendant’s daily activities and ability to earn a living.
It is suggested that dismissal of the driving-while-intoxicated charge is a windfall for defendant. We must remember, however, that the events of October 27, 2007, led to a conviction of a fourth-degree offense. Defendant has not avoided punishment for his conduct that evening. Balancing the relevant factors and the facts of the specific case, we conclude that the extensive and unexplained delay, coupled with the generalized anxiety and personal prejudice occasioned by the protracted resolution of this matter, requires a finding that the State violated defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The only remedy that will address this violation is dismissal of the charge.”
In Hill, the Supreme Court explained that this prejudice inquiry is quite similar to the inquiry for prejudice under Strickland, in that the question of whether counsel’s ineffectiveness prejudiced a petitioner’s guilty plea will often turn on an assessment of the likelihood of success of a particular investigation or strategy.
Source: Hill v. Lockhart 474 U.S. 52 (1985)
In certain Sixth Amendment contexts, prejudice is presumed. Actual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether is legally presumed to result in prejudice. So are various kinds of state interference with counsel’s assistance. See United States v. Cronic, ante, at 659, and n. 25. Prejudice in these circumstances is so likely that case-by-case inquiry into prejudice is not worth the cost. Ante, at 658. Moreover, such circumstances involve impairments of the Sixth Amendment right that are easy to identify and, for that reason and because the prosecution is directly responsible, easy for the government to prevent.
Source: Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
In Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656-57, the Supreme Court examined the prejudice component of the Barker test, and it noted that “affirmative proof of particularized prejudice is not essential to every speedy trial claim,” and that “negligence is not automatically tolerable simply because the accused cannot demonstrate exactly how it has prejudiced him. A lengthy pretrial delay, of course, may prejudice an accused’s ability to defend himself. But, we have explained, prejudice to the defense is not the sort of impairment of liberty against which the Clause is directed. “Passage of time, whether before or after arrest, may impair memories, cause evidence to be lost, deprive the defendant of witnesses, and otherwise interfere with his ability to defend himself. But this possibility of prejudice at trial is not itself sufficient reason to wrench the Sixth Amendment from its proper context.” Marion, supra, at 321-322 (footnote omitted; emphasis added). Even though a defendant may be prejudiced by a pretrial delay, and even though the government may be unable to provide a valid justification for that delay, the Clause does not come into play unless the delay impairs the defendant’s liberty. “Inordinate delay . . . may impair a defendant’s ability to present an effective defense. But the major evils protected against by the speedy trial guarantee exist quite apart from actual or possible prejudice to an accused’s defense.” 404 U.S., at 320 (emphasis added).”
Source: Doggett v. United States 505 U.S. 647 (1992)
“In United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) and United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that a statute of limitation defines only the outer limits of prosecution beyond which there would be an irrebuttable presumption that a defendant’s right to a fair trial would be prejudiced, but that within these limits the due process clause still has a limited role to play in protecting against oppressive delay which prejudices the defendant’s rights. The law has provided other mechanisms to guard against possible as distinguished from actual prejudice resulting from the passage of time between crime and arrest or charge. As we said in United States v. Ewell, supra, at 122, “the applicable statute of limitations . . . is . . . the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges.” Such statutes represent legislative assessments of relative interests of the State and the defendant in administering and receiving justice; they “are made for the repose of society and the protection of those who may [during the limitation] . . . have lost their means of defense.” Public Schools v. Walker, 9 Wall. 282, 288 (1870). These statutes provide predictability by specifying a limit beyond which there is an irrebuttable presumption that a defendant’s right to a fair trial would be prejudiced.”
Source: United States v. Marion 404 U.S. 307 (1971)
In Williams, the Supreme Court held that petitioner Williams, who had been convicted of robbery and capital murder, was prejudiced by his attorney’s ineffective conduct during the penalty phase. The Virginia Supreme Court erred in holding that our decision in Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993), modified or in some way supplanted the rule set down in Strickland. It is true that while the Strickland test provides sufficient guidance for resolving virtually all ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, there are situations in which the overriding focus on fundamental fairness may affect the analysis. Thus, on the one hand, as Strickland itself explained, there are a few situations in which prejudice may be presumed. 466 U.S., at 692. And, on the other hand, there are also situations in which it would be unjust to characterize the likelihood of a different outcome as legitimate “prejudice.” Even if a defendant’s false testimony might have persuaded the jury to acquit him, it is not fundamentally unfair to conclude that he was not prejudiced by counsel’s interference with his intended perjury. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 175-176 (1986).
Source: Williams v. Taylor 529 U.S. 362 (2000)
“It seems to us that the origin of the “extrajudicial source” doctrine, and the key to understanding its flexible scope (or the so-called “exceptions” to it), is simply the pejorative connotation of the words “bias or prejudice.” Not all unfavorable disposition towards an individual (or his case) is properly described by those terms. One would not say, for example, that world opinion is biased or prejudiced against Adolf Hitler. The words connote a favorable or unfavorable disposition or opinion that is somehow wrongful or inappropriate, either because it is undeserved or because it rests upon knowledge that the subject ought not to possess (for example, a criminal juror who has been biased or prejudiced by receipt of inadmissible evidence concerning the defendant’s prior criminal activities), or because it is excessive in degree (for example, a criminal juror who is so inflamed by properly admitted evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal activities that he will vote guilty regardless of the facts). The “extrajudicial source” doctrine is one application of this pejorativeness requirement to the terms “bias” and “prejudice” as they are used in §§ 144 and 455(b)(1) with specific reference to the work of judges.” Interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires federal judges to recuse themselves for personal bias and prejudice
Source: Liteky v. United States 510 U.S. 540 (1994)
Noting that the constitutional harmless error standard of Chapman requires the State to prove that the defendant was not prejudiced by the error. Petitioners direct our attention to the court’s statement that “[t]he sheet was just one small phase in this whole case.” Ibid. While acknowledging this Court’s explanation in Strickland that both the performance and the prejudice components of the ineffectiveness test are mixed questions of fact and law and that therefore a state court’s ultimate conclusions regarding competence and prejudice are not findings of fact binding on the federal court to the extent stated by § 2254(d), see Strickland, 466 U.S., at 698, petitioners maintain that this statement constitutes a subsidiary finding of historical fact, entitled to § 2254(d)’s presumption of correctness. See ibid. Further, petitioners construe the judge’s remark to be a finding that even if the sheet had been excluded, he would have found respondent guilty. So construed and accorded the presumption of correctness, this finding of fact, they argue, prevents a federal court from determining that Morrison was prejudiced by his attorney’s incompetence.
Source: Kimmelman v. Morrison 477 U.S. 365 (1986)
Two counterbalancing factors, however, outweigh these deficiencies. The first is that prejudice was minimal. Of course, Barker was prejudiced to some extent by living for over four years under a cloud of suspicion and anxiety. Moreover, although he was released on bond for most of the period, he did spend 10 months in jail before trial. But there is no claim that any of Barker’s witnesses died or otherwise became unavailable owing to the delay. The trial transcript indicates only two very minor lapses of memory — one on the part of a prosecution witness — which were in no way significant to the outcome. Holding that where defendant was not seriously prejudiced by delay of more than five years, defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial not violated
Source: Barker v. Wingo 407 U.S. 514 (1972)
The majority argues that prosecutorial misconduct, by itself, is not sufficient to justify reversal of a conviction in habeas corpus proceedings. It relies primarily on this Court’s decisions in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 110, 112 (1976), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 92 (1963), which suggest that the constitutional obligation to disclose material evidence is not measured simply by the moral culpability of the prosecutor, and that relief is ordinarily appropriate only when the defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s actions. Even if the majority is correct in holding that prejudice is also required where the prosecutor fails to disclose information suggesting that a juror might be biased, I think it clear that respondent was prejudiced here. If the fact that Smith had applied for a job had been promptly disclosed, respondent’s jury trial right could have been protected.
Source: Smith v. Phillips 455 U.S. 209 (1982)
“The Court of Appeals below applied a per se prejudice rule, and granted habeas relief based solely upon a showing that counsel had performed deficiently under its standard. 160 F.3d, at 536. Unfortunately, this per se prejudice rule ignores the critical requirement that counsel’s deficient performance must actually cause the forfeiture of the defendant’s appeal. If the defendant cannot demonstrate that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, he would have appealed, counsel’s deficient performance has not deprived him of anything, and he is not entitled to relief. Cf. Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (1999) (defendant not prejudiced by court’s failure to advise him of his appeal rights, where he had full knowledge of his right to appeal and chose not to do so). Accordingly, we hold that, to show prejudice in these circumstances, a defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient failure to consult with him about an appeal, he would have timely appealed.”
Source: Roe v. Flores-Ortega 528 U.S. 470 (2000)