SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE: SPEEDY TRIAL STAYED WHILE TRIAL LAWYER IS IN ANOTHER TRIAL
TRYING ONE CASE CONSENTS TO DELAY ON ALL OTHERS, AS ZERO OF TEN
This is a ridiculous case, but not entirely unexpected given the political posture of the day.
Here's the scenerios: You have 3 cases ready for trial. You announce ready on all 3. The California Supreme Court clearly restates that you should announce ready on every case you're ready on - the claim that you can only announce ready on one case is just wrong.
But what happens next? When the judge selects one for trial, or they make you select one, what are the time limits on all the remaining cases?
The California Supreme Court here says you've consented to delay on all those, even if (as here) the first case pled out without commencing trial. And the new date for each of the remaining cases isn't 10 of 10, it's 0 of ten.
They say that the Owens rule (28 Cal.3d 238), that defense delays within the initial 30-45-60 period don't extend the last day, doesn't apply to the 10-day trailing period.
One good thing: your failure to object to prosecution delays during the trailing period doesn't restart the time limits. And this implied consent is inapplicable if the defendant personally objects to the delays.
Then we get into a Johnson (26 C3d 557) situation, where the court tries to find other counsel to try the case within the applicable time period and, if it can't and the delay is caused by the lack of resources, the case gets dismissed. This case is a trainwreck.
Barsamyan v. Superior Court; 2008 DJ DAR 12277; DJ, 8/8/08; Cal. Supremes
