DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 44of51 be helpful to her. Indeed, she again ignores that the flight manifests may well have helped the Government. Once again, the defendant’s argument is entirely speculative and unsupported by the record. The defendant offers no proof or basis for concluding that the flight manifests would be helpful and merit the extreme relief she seeks. Third, the defendant’s “motion is unsupported by any proof that might substantiate a finding of actual and substantial prejudice as a result of the delay.” Berry, 2021 WL 2665585, at *2 (citing Birney, 686 F.2d at 106). The defendant’s “bare assertions do not satisfy the ‘definite and not speculative’ requirements attendant on the [defendant’s] ‘heavy burden’ to show actual prejudice.” Jd. Instead, the defendant appears to “rely on the proposition that the loss of evidence merits an inference that the evidence would have been both favorable and material.” /d. The defendant, however, is “not entitled to any such inference” “[a]s the side that bears the burden.” Id. “Without even a cursory showing of what the evidence would have shown, the [defendant] raise[s] ‘at most the possibility of prejudice,’ but ‘[nJo actual prejudice is established.’” Jd. (quoting United States v. Foddrell, 523 F.2d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1975)). In short, the defendant’s complaints are nothing more than the type of self-serving, vague, speculative, and conclusory claims of prejudice that courts have consistently rejected as insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay. The motion should therefore be denied. they were male or female.” (Tr. 172-73). Thus, there is no basis to conclude that the manifests would have contained the information as the defendant speculates, much less that they would have been helpful to the defense. 43 DOJ-OGR- 00009606