first and second factors in Washington

2013When the delay is due to trial preparation needs, as in this case, the first and second factors are closely related. ¶32 The reason for the delay is “ ‘the focal inquiry,’ ” United States v. Santiago-Becerril, 130 F.3d 11, 22 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 877 F.2d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 1989)), “[t]he flag all litigants seek to capture,” United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 315 , 106 S. Ct. 648 , 88 L.

2013When the delay is due to trial preparation needs, as in this case, the first and second factors are closely related. ¶32 The reason for the delay is “ ‘the focal inquiry,’ ” United States v. Santiago-Becerril, 130 F.3d 11, 22 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 877 F.2d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 1989)), “[t]he flag all litigants seek to capture,” United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 315 , 106 S. Ct. 648 , 88 L.

2024“When the delay is due to trial preparation needs, as in this case, the first and second factors are closely related.” Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 831 . -9- No. 84411-3-I/10 Delay caused by defense counsel is chargeable to the defendant.

2023“When the delay is due to trial preparation needs . . . the first and second factors are closely related.” Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 831 .

2023Id.

2013Ed. 2d 640 (1986). ¶33 To begin, the United States Supreme Court reminds us that “pretrial delay is often both inevitable and wholly justifiable.” Doggett, 505 U.S. at 656 .

2011Id. ¶13 Another central factor weighed by the Manners court was that of avoiding duplicative discovery and facilitating an efficient and practical discovery process in subsequent litigation.

2011Manners, 239 S.W.3d at 588 . ¶ 13 Another central factor weighed by the Manners court was that of avoiding duplicative discovery and facilitating an efficient and practical discovery process in subsequent litigation.

2022“Evidence of this second type of common scheme or plan is admissible because it is not an effort to prove the character of the defendant.” State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 422 , 269 P.3d 207 (2012) (Emphasis omitted). 2 Coronel-Cruz also contends the trial court erred in its findings on the first and second factors.

2022“Evidence of this second type of common scheme or plan is admissible because it is not an effort to prove the character of the defendant.” State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 422 , 269 P.3d 207 (2012) (Emphasis omitted). 2 Coronel-Cruz also contends the trial court erred in its findings on the first and second factors.

2015App. 503, 505 , 820 P.2d 960 (1991).12 The first and second factors weigh against an independent interpretation under the Washington Constitution.

2011Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 768, 791-92 , 193 P.3d 1077 (2008) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Election Contest Filed by Coday, 156 Wn.2d 485, 500-01 , 130 P.3d 809 (2006)). ¶15 The Marshalls contest only the first and second factors.

2011Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 768, 791-92 , 193 P.3d 1077 (2008) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Election Contest Filed by Coday, 156 Wn.2d 485, 500-01 , 130 P.3d 809 (2006)). ¶15 The Marshalls contest only the first and second factors.

2011Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 768, 791-92 , 193 P.3d 1077 (2008) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Election Contest Filed by Coday, 156 Wn.2d 485, 500-01 , 130 P.3d 809 (2006)). ¶15 The Marshalls contest only the first and second factors.

2011Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 768, 791-92 , 193 P.3d 1077 (2008) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Election Contest Filed by Coday, 156 Wn.2d 485, 500-01 , 130 P.3d 809 (2006)). ¶15 The Marshalls contest only the first and second factors.