For the Defense - Vol. 6, Issue 4 - 43

* At the Rule 600 hearing, after the defense has
made a prima facie showing that the defendant
has not been brought to trial within 365 days,
the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving
that they have nonetheless acted with diligence.
This means that after the defense has made such
a prima facie showing, it is the Commonwealth
who should be required to put on its evidence
and the defense should only argue after the
Commonwealth has done so. Essentially, a Rule 600
hearing should proceed in form almost identically
to a suppression hearing. If the judge asks you
to argue prior to the Commonwealth's evidence,
make it clear that you could not possibly argue
on behalf of your client until you know what the
Commonwealth's evidence of diligence is.
About the Authors
About the Author
full notes section for this article.
Patrick Egan, partner at
Fox Rothschild LLP, resident
in the firm's Philadelphia
office, is a former co-chair
of the firm's White-Collar
Criminal Defense & Regulatory
Compliance Practice. A Fellow
of the American College of
Trial Lawyers, he has more
than 30 years of experience
* If the Commonwealth appears at the Rule 600
hearing and does not present any evidence that
it acted with diligence-for instance, they did not
bring in the officer to testify to the attempts made
to find and apprehend the defendant-argue that
they have not met their burden because the burden
of proof includes the burden of production and
arguments of counsel are not evidence.
representing businesses, executives, professionals
and other individuals in federal white-collar criminal
defense matters and parallel civil actions. He regularly
represents clients in matters involving banking
and FDIC enforcement, FCPA, antitrust, securities,
international trade, health care, tax and accounting
oversight, and public corruption. Additionally, Patrick
served as Independent Counsel to the Ethics Committee
of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
and trial units. Katherine graduated Magna Cum
Laude from Loyola Law School, New Orleans
in 2007 and was on law review. She practiced
at Kaufman, Coren & Ress in Philadelphia out
of law school, and thereafter did work in the
intersection of horseracing law and §1983 for a
number of years before following her passion
for indigent criminal defense.
Share this article
Vol. 4, Issue 4 l For The Defense 9
involving alleged violations of consumer financial
protection laws, health care statutes, the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, the False Claims Act, and Anti
Kickback statutes. He previously served as a law
clerk to the Honorable Jan E. DuBois of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
and, before law school, as a Marshal's Aide for the
Supreme Court of the United States.
Katherine Ernst is an
appellate attorney with the
Montgomery County Public
Defender's Office. She
handles appeals from all
units, juvenile to homicide,
and she also formulates
legal strategy for pre-trial
Saverio S. Romeo is an
associate at Fox Rothschild
LLP whose practice focuses
on white-collar criminal
defense and complex
commercial litigation. He
has represented clients in
U.S. Justice Department
investigations as well as in
criminal and civil matters
When it matters most.
Ballard Spahr's White Collar Defense and Internal Investigations team has the
experience, depth, and bench strength to vigorously defend businesses and
executives in high-stakes investigations and enforcement actions.
We are proud to support the PACDL and the 2021 White Collar Practice Seminar.
Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., Practice Leader
hockeimerh@ballardspahr.com | 215.864.8204
Vol. 6, Issue 4 l For The Defense 43
For the Defense - Vol. 6, Issue 4

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 6, Issue 4
