How many times can a prosecutor request this specific 10-day delay in a single human trafficking case?
Short answer
Under the provisions of Assembly Bill 1656, a prosecutor may receive this specific scheduling-based continuance only one time per case. The bill strictly limits the frequency of this delay to ensure it is used sparingly rather than as a routine tactic.
What the bill or law says
AB 1656 amends Section 1050 of the California Penal Code to address how courts handle scheduling conflicts in human trafficking prosecutions. The text explicitly adds human trafficking violations to the list of offenses where a prosecutor’s conflicting trial schedule constitutes "good cause" for a delay.
However, the legislation includes clear boundaries to prevent abuse of this provision. It states that only one continuance per case may be granted to the prosecution under this specific rule. Additionally, the duration of this delay is capped at a maximum of 10 additional court days. Source: Bill Text
How it works in practice
In a practical setting, this means that if a prosecutor handling a human trafficking case is simultaneously engaged in another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress, they can ask the judge for more time. The judge is required to give "great weight" to this conflict when deciding whether to grant the request.
If the judge agrees, the case is delayed by up to 10 court days. Once this single opportunity is used, the prosecutor cannot invoke this specific statutory provision again for the same case, even if they encounter further scheduling conflicts later. The judge retains the discretion to deny the motion if other factors outweigh the prosecutor’s scheduling needs, but the law mandates that the conflict be treated as a significant factor in favor of the delay. Source: Official Bill Status Page
What the source does not answer
The bill text and legislative history do not specify what happens if a prosecutor has multiple overlapping trials beyond this single allowed delay. It also does not detail how judges should weigh this "great weight" standard against other competing interests, such as a defendant’s right to a speedy trial, beyond the general requirement to consider the conflict. Furthermore, the sources do not provide data on how often such conflicts currently arise in human trafficking cases, nor do they quantify the potential impact on jail costs or court administration budgets.