For the Defense - Vol. 8, Issue 4 - 35

gpyp
objection to the additional time period.
e same
f any
t way,
ested
on
with the
failed to
uests in
re to
inuance
e in
issue for
* 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.
5
NOTES:
1
28 U.S.C. § 991(b).
2 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
3 The First Step Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-391) § 603(b).
4
PANTONE
practicable.
5
6 Id.
2955C
7406C
CMYK
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1).
7 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3).
8 Id.
NOTES:
1
9 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(4).
10 Id.
13 Id.
16
90/78/39/30
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
11 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6).
12 Id.
3 Commonwealth v. DeBlase, 665 A.2d 427, 431 (Pa. 1995).
4
must be
after the
ge rules
wealth
file
onal
erve an
has
dant
ays,
oving
ence.
e such
alth
nce
e
Rule 600
ntically
you
ence,
gue
at the
600
that
did not
ts made
ue that
e burden
and
* 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.
14 Id.; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(c).
15 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5).
immigration crimes, forms of identity theft, and sex offenses.
17
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a).
18
About the Author
Click here to view and/or print the
full notes section for this article.
Vol. 4, Issue 4 l For The Defense 9
WANTED:
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
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).
Statutory mandatory minimum sentences apply to a wide
variety of federal crimes, including but not limited to drug
trafficking, importation and exportation laws, firearms offenses,
To qualify for safety valve protection, a defendant must also
satisfy a number of other prerequisites that remain unchanged.
U.S.S.G § 5C1.2(a)(2)-(5).
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).
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a). The Commission also added two
new application notes to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13: one disapproving
of the use of compassionate release in situations where a
furlough would adequately address the circumstances and the
other encouraging notification of a defendant's victims where
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.
About the Author
Click here to view and/or print the
full notes section for this article.
About the Authors
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
For over twenty years, Mariana
Rossman has represented individuals
facing all forms of government
investigation and prosecution.
Ms. Rossman is a solo practitioner
and owner of The Rossman Firm in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where
her practice focuses on federal
criminal defense, professional
licensure revocation and university
disciplinary proceedings; she also
regularly provides litigation support
to fellow attorneys.
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
Jed Silversmith is a white collar
criminal defense attorney in
Montgomery County. Jed's primary
focus is representing clients with
civil and criminal tax and forfeiture
matters in federal court. Prior to
entering private practice, Jed was
a trial attorney at the Department
of Justice, Tax Division, where
he prosecuted criminal tax cases
throughout the United States.
LEADERS, INFLUENCERS AND STRATEGISTS TO SERVE
ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
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
2955C
CM
Vol. 4, Issue 4 l For The Defense 9
90/78/39/30
RG
Vol. 8, Issue 4 l For The Defense 35
Apply by sending a short
email to pacdl@pacdl.org
indicating your interest
PAN
https://nxt-staging-books.s3.amazonaws.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol8_issue4_2023/src/docs/2023_Federal_Sentencing_Guideline_Amendments_Update_Silversmith_and_Rossman_FINAL.pdf
For the Defense - Vol. 8, Issue 4

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 8, Issue 4
