California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 750, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 381, 996 P.2d 32 (Cal. 2000):
We find defendant's argument unpersuasive. Defendant is correct about the convergence of the tests for determining due process and speedy trial violations under the state Constitution. As this court has said, "regardless of whether defendant's claim is based on a due process analysis or a right to a speedy trial not defined by statute, the test is the same,
[94 Cal.Rptr.2d 394]
i.e., any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay must be weighed against justification for the delay." (Scherling v. Superior Court, supra, 22 Cal.3d 493, 505, 149 Cal.Rptr. 597, 585 P.2d 219, fn. omitted.) But we find nothing improper in this convergence when, as here, the two separate constitutional rights are protecting the same interest.[94 Cal.Rptr.2d 394]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.