The accused has the right to a speedy trial but that doesn’t mean the accused has to HAVE a speedy trial. The public defender for the accused has requested a continuance (delay) in the past. What I see here doesn’t say that is the one who requested it this time but it is at least possible the court delayed the trial date for convenience without objection of the public defender or prosecutor.

In general, the purpose of a continuance is to allow the defendant’s defender time to prepare for trial so there is no question that the defendant got a fair trial. It might give them time to line up witnesses to support his claim of innocence, get back results of tests on physical evidence supporting his claim of innocence, time to prepare, time to negotiate a plea deal. Then if a jury convicts, there is less question that he received his Constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial, thus one less justification for appeal and possible release. Besides, if he IS innocent, wouldn’t you want him free and them going after the real culprit?

(On a less noble note, sometimes continuances’ real purposes are to give prosecution witnesses time to forget what they saw or die, thus allowing the guilty to walk. That’s never the official reason for request of continuance, but is the real one. I don’t think that applies here, anyway.)

In this case, the delay is one month, during which time the defendant is behind bars.

David partially answering question