Thomas Maniscalco v. A. M. Gonzales

MEMORANDUM

In this § 2254 habeas appeal, John Maniscalco first argues that his due process rights were violated as a result of a four-year delay between the murders and his indictment. While the California Court of Appeal found actual prejudice to Manis-calco, Maniscalco’s due process claim for pre-indictment delay still fails because there was no culpability on the state’s part. The investigation was a complex one: a triple homicide in which the bodies had decomposed. And it was early on beset by false leads. An informant told police that another man had committed the murders, and weapons recovered from Maniscalco’s property tested negative as the crime scene weapon. It was only in 1984 when Bruce Van Arsdell, a key witness, was located that the state believed it had sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and then the state brought the charges. There is no evidence that the state intentionally delayed the indictment in order to gain a tactical advantage. Nor is there evidence of other misconduct or negligence on the state’s part. It was not an unreasonable application of United States Supreme Court precedent for the California Court of Appeal to hold that…