State v. McFarland

Connecticut Supreme Court, across three opinions, held that the state constitution’s due process provisions require a more protective balancing test for pre-arrest delay than the approach adopted by the majority of federal circuits under the federal due process clause. Because the government satisfied its burden of showing legitimate investigative reasons for the 32-year delay between the crime and the arrest that outweighed the defendant’s prejudice, however, the court concluded his claim failed that balancing test.