Summarize the following:

Exhibit D, MCSO Impound Sheets. Item 1 which was listed by the lab as a "rock-like substance" not 2 rock like substances. It is unclear what evidence was actually tested and weighed. Without the actual evidence it is very difficult for Vince to competently contradict these murky results. As to the white piece of paper it appears that this crucial item of evidence was never tested for fingerprints. It was submitted to "identify any possible prints for comparison to suspect upon arrest." Eight years later Vince would like to complete a latent print test on that paper. If the paper showed someone else's fingerprints other than Vince's, this would obviously support his misidentification defense. Related to the January 12, 1993 sale, Detective Minner submitted "2 small pieces of a rock like substance." The lab tested a "rocky powder substance." It is unclear whether or not the substances submitted were actually the substance(s) tested. It would be very helpful and 111 extremely crucial to Vince's defense to physically examine and compare the substances submitted to the substance actually tested, and if appropriate conduct an independent test. Due to the State's actions Vince is now precluded from obtaining and analyzing the only physical evidence against him in this case. d. Due To The Passage Of Time MVD Records Were Destroyed. Vince is unable to obtain any records from MVD to support or contradict the information received by Detective Scoville's concerning Vince's address as listed on MVD records in 1993. Mr. Bachtle tried to obtain these records from MVD and was told they were not available. Exhibit A, Bachtle Report, paragraph 1. This affects Vince's defenses as to misidentification. e. Due To The Passage Of Time Residential Records Are Not Available. Vince is unable to obtain any records showing that he was not on the lease at the Villa Martel Apartments located at 3602 E. Monte Vista Road, Apartment 103. Mr. Bachtle tried to obtain these records from the onsite manager of the apartment complex and the management company. Mr. Bachtle was told they were not available. Apparently real estate records are only required to be kept for 5 years. Exhibit A, Bachtle Report, paragraph 2. This affects Vince's defenses as to misidentification. f. Due To The Passage Of Time Witnesses Are Unavailable And Memories Have Faded. Vince is unable to obtain any records showing who was the owner of the Ford LTD in 1993. Mr. Bachtle tried to obtain these records from MVD and was told they were not available. Mr. Bachtle was unable to locate Penny Meier, the listed owner (according to MCSO) of the Ford LTD in 1993. Exhibit A, Bachtle Report, paragraph 3. Information from Penny Meier that she did not know / does not know Vince affects Vince's defenses as to identification. In addition, it is now impossible to try to locate the other individuals who were in the Ford LTD in 1993 to have them testify that Vince was not with them on the dates in question. Moreover, any alibi defense is not only impossible to substantiate (who can remember what they were doing on a specific day 8 years ago) but would be a very hard defense to raise credibly before the trier of fact. 112 g. Due To The Passage Of Time Pager Records Are Not Available. Vince is unable to obtain any records showing that he was not the owner of pager number 602-285-8215. Mr. Bachtle tried to obtain these records from Qwest / US West and was told they were not available. Apparently the FAA requires records to be kept for 7 years. In addition Qwest / US West sold off their pager division to ARCH Paging Company and the records were purged or no longer available. Exhibit A, Bachtle Report, paragraph 4. This affects Vince's defenses as to misidentification. h. Due To The Passage Of Time Phone Records Are Not Available. Vince is unable to obtain any records showing when exactly Detective Minner allegedly made one of the drug buys from Vince. Although the complaint states that the first sale was made on January 5, 1993, Detective Minner also lists the date as January 5, 1992, at 1547 hours. Exhibit J, Minner Supplemental Report. Independent phone records from the pay phone at Home Depot showing when exactly the phone call was made to Detective Minner's office would be conclusive as to the date. Mr. Bachtle tried to obtain these records from Qwest / US West and was told they were not available. The records were destroyed after 7 years. Exhibit A, Bachtle Report, paragraph 5. This affects Vince's defense as to a necessary element of every crime, the date. The actual and substantial prejudice due to the passage of almost 8 years and the State's actions, and inactions is overwhelming. Vince is left with no evidence to test, no evidence to examine, no evidence to contradict, no leads to follow up on, no witnesses to interview - in short NO DEFENSE. The Court should find this case intolerable. It should not be impossible for the State to prosecute a suspect charged with a hand-to-hand drug sale, especially if the State knows who the person is and where the person lives. These cases do not require long investigative delays, as most of the evidence is gathered contemporaneously with the commission of the crime. Hinson v. Coulter, 150 Ariz. 306, 310, 723 P.2d 655 (Ariz. 1986). The unreasonable delay between formal accusation and trial threatens to produce more than one sort of harm, including anxiety and concern of the accused and the possibility that the accused's defense will be impaired by dimming memories and the loss of exculpatory evidence. Of these forms of prejudice the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant to adequately prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system. Doggett v. U.S., 505 U.S. 113 647, 112 S.Ct. 2686 (1992). The impairment of one's defense is the most difficult prejudice to prove because time's erosion of exculpatory evidence and testimony can rarely be shown, and that excessive delay presumptively compromises the reliability of a trial in ways that neither party can prove, or for that matter, identify. Doggett at 655. Official negligence compounds over time as the presumption of evidentiary prejudice grows. "Condoning prolonged and unjustifiable delays in prosecution would both penalize many defendants for the state's fault and simply encourage the government to gamble with the interests of criminal suspects assigned a low prosecutorial priority." Doggett at 657. In Vince's case the 8 year delay is entirely due to the State's inexcusable neglect and lack of due diligence in locating and prosecuting the case. The prejudice concrete and overwhelming to Vince's defense. The Court should dismiss this case with prejudice due to pre-indictment delay. V. CONCLUSION. This case should be dismissed based on statute of limitations grounds, lack of due diligence by the State in arresting / serving Vince, or pre-indictment delay. Any of these violations standing alone is sufficient and requires dismissal of the case with prejudice. Based on all of the foregoing reasons, facts, and circumstances Vince respectfully requests the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice.