What is the effect of the city attorney's practice of waiting until the 11th hour to subpoena police officers for trial?

But the court also expressly limited its opinion "to the problems inherent in the Los Angeles City Attorney's practice of waiting until the `eleventh hour' to subpoena police officers for trial." (Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d at p. 266, 234 Cal.Rptr. 416.) The city attorney's office had a "`custom and habit' ... not to subpoena police officers until the defense announced ready for trial...." (Id. at p. 263, 234 Cal.Rptr. 416.) Although the court criticized this practice, it also found there had been an inadequate showing of good cause for a continuance. The prosecution merely stated it had been unable to serve the witness; there was no evidence to show why the witness could not be served, i.e., "the dates of the absent officer's vacation and the date of his return." (Id. at p. 265, 234 Cal.Rptr. 416.)