With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". defendant must first show actual prejudice from the delay, and the court must then weigh any demonstrable reasons for the delay against the significance of the particular prejudice on a case-by-case basis. See Rivera v. State, 717 So.2d 477, 483 (Fla.1998) (citing Rogers v. State, 511 So.2d 526, 531 (Fla.1987)). If Overton’s counsel had asserted a challenge based on the preindictment delay, the claim would have failed under both of the required elements. Under the first, Overton could not establish there was actual prejudice from the delay. Even assuming alibi witnesses and Amoco timecards or receipts would have established that Overton worked the late night shift on August 21, 1991, this would only provide an incomplete alibi at best as discussed above. See Rivera, 717 So.2d at 483-84 (<HOLDING>). With regard to Loma Swaby no longer being

A: holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses who would have supported the defendants version of events was prejudicial
B: holding that there was not deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi defense claim because the available testimony provided at best an incomplete alibi as the testimony still allowed for a two to threehour window for the defendant to commit the murder
C: holding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for counsels failure to present the preindictment delay issue was without merit because there was no actual prejudice to the supposed alibi defense as the now unavailable witnesses would not have provided the defendant with an alibi for the time when the murder could have occurred
D: holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel
C.