For the Defense - Vol. 8, Issue 1 - 31

Discuss this waiver with your client with the same
seriousness you would discuss the waiver of any
constitutional right.30
* Request discovery early and in writing. That way,
if the Commonwealth fails to provide requested
discovery, any required continuance will be on
the prosecution. If you have to follow-up with the
Commonwealth about discovery they have failed to
hand over, be sure to memorialize such requests in
a writing such as an email.
* If a continuance is required due to the
Commonwealth's failure of diligence, be sure to
put that on the record at the time the continuance
is requested. Even if the judge does not rule in
your favor, you have at least preserved the issue for
appeal.
* All motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600 must be
made in writing.31
365-day period has elapsed. If the trial judge rules
against you and subsequently the Commonwealth
causes another substantial period of delay, file
a new Rule 600 motion based on this additional
time and litigate it prior to any trial to preserve an
objection to the additional time period.
* 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.
File your client's motion after the
Using the strategy above, people both in and
outside my office have had tremendous success with
Rule 600 motions. Oftentimes, just making it plain
to the Commonwealth that you intend to seriously
litigate this issue can get you results. It is only one
weapon in your arsenal, but because a win means
discharge, it is a potent weapon that should never
be overlooked.
PANTONE
2955C
CMYK
7406C
90/78/39/30
NOTES:
1
RGB
9/22/91/0
22/58/92
234/194/56
Commonwealth v. Mills, 162 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2017).
2 U.S. ConSt. Amend. VI; PA. CONST. art. 1, § 9.
HEXIDECIMAL
#153A5B
#EAC137
3 Commonwealth v. DeBlase, 665 A.2d 427, 431 (Pa. 1995).
4
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972) (articulating the
constitutional test); Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d
1, 10 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (the Barker test is an entirely
separate analysis from Rule 600 and therefore needs to be
raised separately).
Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 600(2)(a); see also Commonwealth
v. Kearse, 890 A.2d 388, 395 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (no
" prejudice " need be shown to obtain Rule 600 dismissal).
While Rule 600 has a more definitive time period, the sole
focus of Rule 600 is on the action of the Commonwealth.
Thus, a constitutional argument should be forwarded
when a delay prejudices a defendant and that delay was
primarily caused by the courts.
6 Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 600(D)(1).
5
About the Author
Click here to view and/or print the
full notes section for this article.
We are currently forming a steering committee for the
Foundation in order to coordinate and lead our fundraising
efforts. Thereafter, the Foundation will be launching a special
fundraising campaign that will enable us to begin the process of
fixing critical aspects of our broken justice system. By the end of
2024, we seek to raise a minimum of $575,000 to fund these vital
initiatives.
* 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.
PANTONE
2955C
7406C
CMYK
90/78/39/30
RGB
9/22/91/0
22/58/92
234/194/56
HEXIDECIMAL
How can you help? Glad you asked. One important way would
be to volunteer your time and talent in helping us raise funds
for the campaign. Attorneys, law firms, businesses, foundations,
individuals, families, appropriate government granting agencies,
and service groups will be asked to give to these vital objectives.
Of course, another way to support the Foundation's efforts would
be to consider making a contribution to the campaign. The
Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, so your gift may qualify as
a charitable deduction for income tax purposes and pledges may
be made payable over a period of one to two years.
As PACDL members, I would ask that you join me in supporting
our Foundation by giving of your time, talent, and/or treasure
in an effort to support indigent criminal defense across our
Commonwealth. We cannot win this fight alone. We are, as
always, stronger when we stand together. Come stand with the
PACDL Foundation for Justice.
About the Author
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
Michael J. Engle is a Past
President of PACDL and serves
as the Board President of the
PACDL Foundation for Justice.
Mike is a partner at Stradley
Ronon in Philadelphia.
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
Vol. 8, Issue 1 l For The Defense 31
Michael Engle is a skilled trial
lawyer with more than 20
years of experience handling
complex criminal cases, internal investigations and
compliance matters. He also handles a variety of civil
litigation matters, especially the defense of False
Claims Act or qui tam actions. A fellow of the esteemed
American College of Trial Lawyers, he routinely
represents clients in connection with grand jury
subpoenas and civil investigative demands (CIDs).
For the Defense - Vol. 8, Issue 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 8, Issue 1
