In prosecution on marijuana conspiracy charges, Dist. Ct. did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to speedy trial, even though Dist. Ct. granted govt.’s motion for one-month delay in trial to investigate charge that defendant had intimidated witness scheduled to testify at his upcoming trial. Instant one-month delay was not presumptively prejudicial, and instant delay was justified where evidence of defendant’s potential intimidation was only recently discovered, and where such evidence had potential to establish defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Fact that govt. used extra month to gather other evidence against defendant and to interview witnesses in effort to better prepare for trial did not require different result.