purposefully designed to gain tactical advantage or to harass the defendants.” Revada, 574 F.2d at 1048 (quoting United States v. Beitscher, 467 F.2d 269, 272 (10th Cir.1972)). Defendant argues that he was prejudiced and the State gained a tactical advantage because Argyle could not be located by the time the State initiated its prosecution against him. However, whatever tactical advantage the State may have gained, it clearly cannot be said that the State delayed for that purpose. The State delayed because defendant was incarcerated and was awaiting trial on federal charges and could not have simultaneously stood trial on state charges. Thus, the “purposeful design” element of the Reva-da test is not met. Cf. People v. Gates, 43 Cal.3d 1168, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301, 317 (1987) (<HOLDING>). III. FAILURE TO PRODUCE MATERIAL WITNESS
holding pendency of another trial constitutes good cause for delay and thus finding defendants statutory and constitutional speedy trial claims without merit holding that delay resulting from prior incompetence to stand trial does not violate speedy trial guarantee holding that review of good cause determination to avoid dismissal for speedy trial purposes is abuse of discretion holding that a 19month delay between indictment and trial did not violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial holding that whether a pretrial motion actually caused or is expected to cause delay of trial is irrelevant to the speedy trial act