In People v. Avila (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 163, a witness to a gang-related assault testified at the defendant's first trial, and was apparently fearless and cooperative. (Avila, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at pp. 167-169.) After the first trial ended in a mistrial, the prosecution waited until the first day of the retrial (three months later) to contact the witness about testifying, and was unsuccessful in locating her. (Id. at p. 169.) A detective testified he had waited until the morning of the retrial to serve the witness because he feared she would flee if given time to ponder the implications of testifying in a gang-related case. (Ibid.) The detective also contradictorily claimed he had been confident of his ability to locate her on the shortest possible notice and had not anticipated that she would move from her apartment. (Id. at pp. 169-170.) The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of due diligence, explaining that "[w]aiting until the morning a trial begins to try to locate a witness after being out of touch for several months is generally not prudent or reasonable, and certainly is not an untiring effort to secure a witness's presence at trial." (Id. at p. 169.)