How have courts dealt with the issue of prosecutorial delay in dismissing a criminal case?

In People v. Conrad (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1185, the court stated that "[a] trial court has discretion to fashion a remedy when the prosecutor's conduct has resulted in a loss of evidence favorable to the defense." In that case, the defendant claimed that he suffered prejudice due to prosecutorial delay because a witness who allegedly could have provided testimony favorable to him died. (Id. at pp. 1181, 1184, 1185.) The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the action because the prejudice "could have been substantially mitigated" by instructing the jury that defendant stayed at his brother's house during a particular period of time, to which defendant's brother allegedly would have testified. (Id. at pp. 1184-1186.) Accordingly, in the present case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing stipulation and exclusion of evidence to cure potential and actual prejudice rather than dismissing the case.

When a "defendant fail[s] to discharge [his] burden of showing prejudice, we need not determine whether the delay in arresting [him] was justified." (Shleffar, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at p. 948; People v. Dunn-Gonzalez (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 899, 911 ["If

Page 12