defendant to prepare defense in California

2019(Crockett v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 433, 442 ; Ibarra, 162 Cal. App. 853 at 858.) What is more, the defendant must show actual prejudice.

2015(Crockett v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 433, 442 .) Where defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice, “the court need not inquire into the justification for the delay since there is nothing to ‘weigh’ such justification against.” (Dunn-Gonzales, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 911 .) Even a minimal showing of prejudice, however, 25 requires the prosecution to explain the reasons for the delay.

2019(Morris, 46 Cal. 3d at 37 ; People v. Dunn-Gonzalez (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 899, 911 ; Ibarra, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 858 ; Serna, 40 Cal. 3d at 251 .) “The overarching theme is that the loss of such evidence, especially when the defendant or victims cannot independently recall details of the crime, makes it difficult or impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense thus showing prejudice.” (People v. Mirenda (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1313, 1328 .) Of course, a defendant’s showing of prejudice must be supported by facts and not just bare conclusions.

2015(Crockett v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 433, 442 .) Where defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice, “the court need not inquire into the justification for the delay since there is nothing to ‘weigh’ such justification against.” (Dunn-Gonzales, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 911 .) Even a minimal showing of prejudice, however, 25 requires the prosecution to explain the reasons for the delay.

2019(Morris, 46 Cal. 3d at 37 ; People v. Dunn-Gonzalez (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 899, 911 ; Ibarra, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 858 ; Serna, 40 Cal. 3d at 251 .) “The overarching theme is that the loss of such evidence, especially when the defendant or victims cannot independently recall details of the crime, makes it difficult or impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense thus showing prejudice.” (People v. Mirenda (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1313, 1328 .) Of course, a defendant’s showing of prejudice must be supported by facts and not just bare conclusions.

2015(Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239, 251 .) “The overarching theme is that the loss of such evidence, especially where the defendant or victims cannot independently recall details of the crime, makes it difficult or impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense thus showing prejudice.” (People v. Mirenda, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1328 .) The defendant must establish actual prejudice shown by particular facts, not bare conclusory statements.

2025(Craft v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1540 .) A defendant may meet this burden by demonstrating “that the loss of such evidence . . . makes it difficult or impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense . . . .” (People v. Mirenda (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1328 (Mirenda).) “The showing of actual prejudice must be made on competent evidence and ‘must be supported by particular facts and not . . . by bare conclusionary statements.’ [Citation.] Speculative arguments are inadequate to establish actual prejudice. [Citations.] Instead, the defendant must affirmatively demonstra

2025(Craft v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1540 .) A defendant may meet this burden by demonstrating “that the loss of such evidence . . . makes it difficult or impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense . . . .” (People v. Mirenda (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1328 (Mirenda).) “The showing of actual prejudice must be made on competent evidence and ‘must be supported by particular facts and not . . . by bare conclusionary statements.’ [Citation.] Speculative arguments are inadequate to establish actual prejudice. [Citations.] Instead, the defendant must affirmatively demonstra

2025(Craft v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1540 .) A defendant may meet this burden by demonstrating “that the loss of such evidence . . . makes it difficult or impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense . . . .” (People v. Mirenda (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1328 (Mirenda).) “The showing of actual prejudice must be made on competent evidence and ‘must be supported by particular facts and not . . . by bare conclusionary statements.’ [Citation.] Speculative arguments are inadequate to establish actual prejudice. [Citations.] Instead, the defendant must affirmatively demonstra

2019(Morris, 46 Cal. 3d at 37 ; People v. Dunn-Gonzalez (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 899, 911 ; Ibarra, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 858 ; Serna, 40 Cal. 3d at 251 .) “The overarching theme is that the loss of such evidence, especially when the defendant or victims cannot independently recall details of the crime, makes it difficult or impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense thus showing prejudice.” (People v. Mirenda (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1313, 1328 .) Of course, a defendant’s showing of prejudice must be supported by facts and not just bare conclusions.

2019(Morris, 46 Cal. 3d at 37 ; People v. Dunn-Gonzalez (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 899, 911 ; Ibarra, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 858 ; Serna, 40 Cal. 3d at 251 .) “The overarching theme is that the loss of such evidence, especially when the defendant or victims cannot independently recall details of the crime, makes it difficult or impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense thus showing prejudice.” (People v. Mirenda (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1313, 1328 .) Of course, a defendant’s showing of prejudice must be supported by facts and not just bare conclusions.

2009In addition, although a federal speedy trial case, the reasoning in Doggett, supra, 505 U.S. 647 , is instmctive on the issue of showing prejudice for analyzing either speedy trial or due process violations as the constitutional guarantees “converge in protecting the same interest of the accused” for a fair adjudication.

2009If the delay was merely negligent, a greater showing of prejudice would be required to establish a due process violation.” (Id. at p. 1256.) Among other things, “ ‘[prejudice [for due process or speedy trial violation claims] may be shown by loss of material witnesses due to lapse of time [citation] or loss of evidence because of fading memory attributable to the delay.’ [Citation.]” (Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 107 .) The overarching theme is that the loss of such evidence, especially where the defendant or victims cannot independently recall details of the crime, makes it difficult or im

2009If the delay was merely negligent, a greater showing of prejudice would be required to establish a due process violation.” (Id. at p. 1256.) Among other things, “ ‘[prejudice [for due process or speedy trial violation claims] may be shown by loss of material witnesses due to lapse of time [citation] or loss of evidence because of fading memory attributable to the delay.’ [Citation.]” (Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 107 .) The overarching theme is that the loss of such evidence, especially where the defendant or victims cannot independently recall details of the crime, makes it difficult or im

2008"The purpose behind the notice requirement ... is to permit the defendant to prepare a defense, at the penalty trial, not to question prospective jurors about every bit of evidence they might hear. *277 Defendant's argument would mean that no evidence discovered after the beginning of trial would ever be admissible, which is not the law." ( Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 620 , 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 68 P.3d 302 .) 2.

2008"The purpose behind the notice requirement ... is to permit the defendant to prepare a defense, at the penalty trial, not to question prospective jurors about every bit of evidence they might hear. *277 Defendant's argument would mean that no evidence discovered after the beginning of trial would ever be admissible, which is not the law." ( Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 620 , 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 68 P.3d 302 .) 2.

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1990(People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 371 , 433 P.2d 163 ]; People v. Moss (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 248 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 107 ]; People v. Mendez (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 302 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 31 ]; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; People v. Fulton (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 972 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; People v. Morgan (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 523 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 ]; People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 382 ]; see also People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 741, fn. 3 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 691 P.2d 994 , 64 A.L.R.4th 723 ].) In People v. Maddox,

1972Municipal Court, supra, 184 Cal.App.2d 507, 511-513 .) The analogy to section 1382, subdivision 2, is, of course, imperfect: while the section constitutes a legislative declaration that a delay of more than 60 days after the filing of the information, absent good cause, is a denial of the right to a speedy trial, it is evident that a substantial portion of the 60-day period is usually needed by the defendant to prepare his defense and that in many, if not most, cases it would be a denial of due process to hustle a defendant off to trial immediately after his plea.

1924(People v. Faust, 113 Cal. 172 [ 45 Pac. 261 ]; Ex parte Hansen, 158 Cal. 494 [ 111 Pac. 528 ].) While the decisions in other jurisdictions are not uniform, the weight of authority is contrary to appellant’s contention.

1924(People v. Faust, 113 Cal. 172 [ 45 Pac. 261 ]; Ex parte Hansen, 158 Cal. 494 [ 111 Pac. 528 ].) While the decisions in other jurisdictions are not uniform, the weight of authority is contrary to appellant’s contention.