## Facts

- In 1976, Martin Dillon died from a shotgun wound to the chest at a rural recreational property in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.
- Dr. Stephen Barry Scher was the only other person present when Dillon was shot.
- Shortly after the shooting, Scher went to a neighbor’s home with blood on his hands and mouth and asked the neighbor to call authorities.
- The neighbor returned to the scene with Scher and saw Dillon’s body; the neighbor covered the body with a blanket.
- The neighbor testified that Scher picked up the shotgun near Dillon and smashed it against a tree, separating the barrel from the stock.
- The initial 1976 investigation treated Dillon’s death as an accident, and no charges were filed.
- Over time, concerns arose about the adequacy of the initial investigation and whether Scher had misled investigators and staged the scene to appear accidental.

## Issues

1. Whether an approximately 20-year pre-accusation delay in charging Scher with murder violated due process under the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, requiring dismissal.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the 20-year delay did not violate Scher’s due process rights.
- The court reversed the Superior Court’s order that had vacated the judgment of sentence.
- The court reinstated Scher’s first-degree murder conviction and judgment of sentence.

## Legal Principles

- A due process claim based on pre-accusation delay requires the defendant to prove actual, concrete prejudice to the defense caused by the delay; speculative or generalized assertions are insufficient.
- If actual prejudice is shown, the court balances the prejudice against the Commonwealth’s reasons for the delay, including whether the delay reflected bad faith, an intent to gain a tactical advantage, or other improper purpose.
- A lengthy delay, even if negligent, does not alone establish a due process violation absent actual prejudice and improper prosecutorial motivation.
- In assessing the Commonwealth’s justification, the court may consider how investigative and charging decisions evolved over time and whether the defendant’s own conduct impaired the investigation.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that Scher failed to demonstrate the required actual prejudice from the pre-charge delay and that the Commonwealth’s delay was not shown to be an improper attempt to disadvantage the defense; accordingly, due process did not require dismissal, and the conviction was reinstated.


Commonwealth v. Scher, 803 A.2d 1204 (Pa. 2002)