| |
| | United States v. Lam |
 | | The government, meanwhile, argues that Lam was not deprived of his constitutional speedy trial right given that all of the continuances were initiated by, stipulated to, and granted for his benefit through his trial counsel, and that Lam waived his STA claim by failing to move to dismiss until after the trial. |
 | | In assessing the merits of a claimed violation of the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, courts are to conduct a balancing test involving four separate factors: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant' s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. |
 | | It is also true that in virtually all of the cases where we have denied a speedy trial claim on the ground that defense counsel acquiesced in the trial delays, the defendant himself expressly agreed to the continuances or stipulated to the factual bases underlying the requests. |
| www.law.com /regionals/ca/opinions/aug/9910463.shtml (4879 words) |
|