...there isn't a valid reason to hold up proceedings for results.
I certainly disagree with this thinking.
A trial is not a game to be won, but rather a quest for justice and truth for victims and accused.
Ultimately the ability to have the results of evidence-testing offers more light to be shed on the case, and a quest for justice and truth would not be enhanced by saying, "Sorry, we'll never know legally if that evidence mattered or not, because in April we decided to start the trial on Nov 30 no matter what, justice be damned!"
Is that a bit melodramatic? Perhaps. But on the other hand, there are 4 factors at play here that make this much ado about nothing:
1
Nov 30 was just a date that was arbitrarily picked in the 1st place, by all 3 parties (the court, the DA, the defense) because it gave everyone time to make sure they have cleared calendars and about 6 months to work their pre-trial process.
2 T
here is nothing sacred about starting the trial in 6 months-ish on Nov 30, that gets lost by starting it in 6.5 or 7 months instead.
3
The schedule adjustment is being requested and made several months in advance. If we were on the eve of trial and then one side or the other asked for a delay of several months, that would be different. But this feels like a delay where one party has an issue, and is working with the others to keep them in the loop as to the ramifications, and that's how the courts are supposed to work.
4 While it's not something most of us deal with on a regular basis,
this is simply life in the courts. They recognize that while they want to prevent foot-dragging, time factors have to be allowed in considerations of justice. There are other cases to be tried, other evidence in the queue at state testing labs, and everyone has lots of tasks on their plate. Sometimes you have to adjust, and they do.