# Commonwealth v. Scher

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · August 20, 2002 · 569 Pa. 284

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759711

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Stephen Barry SCHER, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 20, 2002
- **Citations:** 569 Pa. 284; 803 A.2d 1204; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 1721
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Newman, Former, Flaherty, Castille, Nigro, Saylor, Zappala, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759711

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding “prejudice alone is not sufficient to show a violation of due process where the delay was due to the government’s continuing investigation of the crime”

## Opinion text

Justice NIGRO,
concurring.
I join the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court except for that portion of its decision that applies the second prong of the due process standard for pre-arrest delay, as developed by the lead opinion, to the facts of the instant case. *340 I agree with the lead opinion that Scher failed to meet the threshold burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. Once this conclusion is reached, however, I see no need to even consider the second prong of the test. I would simply hold that Scher’s due process claim fails because he did not demonstrate actual prejudice.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759711. Public record. Not legal advice.