What factors are relevant to the failure of a defendant to attend trial?

Second, the Perez majority found "[t]he efforts of the district attorney's office to secure defendant's presence for trial far exceed those efforts held [4 Cal.App.4th 1019] sufficient to establish due diligence in the cases discussed above. We conclude the superior court abused its discretion in finding that the People failed to exercise due diligence in attempting to secure defendant's presence for trial." (People v. Perez, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 315, 279 Cal.Rptr. 915.) Here, the prosecution appeared to concede the police were not diligent in searching for Ogle; they apparently took no steps to find him.

Because the Kern County authorities failed to make any effort to arrest Ogle at his known address after Ogle failed to appear, the two-year delay was not "attributable to the defendant" within the meaning of Barker v. Wingo. Rather, the Barker v. Wingo factors were relevant to Ogle's failure to appear. The significance of his actions depends on his state of mind when he failed to appear, an issue raised by his testimony but not resolved by the municipal court.

Presumptive Prejudice