The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Palomba, 31 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir. 1994):
After the district court explained to Palomba his right to a speedy trial and the length of the continuance, Palomba consulted with his counsel and confirmed that he would accept the October 15, 1990 trial date. Where a defendant stipulates to the need for trial preparation, he "cannot maintain that these continuances give rise to an STA violation." Id. at 1506; see also, Denham v. Deeds, 954 F.2d 1501, 1505 (9th Cir.1992). Having made a fully-informed choice to move for a continuance tolling the clock, Palomba was precluded from objecting that his right to a speedy trial was violated.
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.