2005 Pa. Super. 180 - Commonwealth v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Excludable time” is defined in Rule 600(C) as the period of time between the filing of the written complaint and the defendant’s arrest, ... any period of time for which the defendant expressly waives Rule 600; and/or such period of delay at any stage of the proceedings as results from: (a) the unavailability of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney; (b) any continuance granted at the request of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney. “Excusable delay” is not expressly defined in Rule 600, but the legal construct takes into account delays which occur as a result of circumstances be yond the Commonwealth’s control and despite its due diligence. Brown, supra [ 875 A.2d 1128 ] at 1135 (quoting Hunt, supra at 1241 ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 357 - Commonwealth v. Jones · 2008 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Booze

2. “If the Commonwealth attempts to bring a defendant to trial beyond the 365 day-period prescribed by Rule 600, and the defendant files a Rule 600 motion to dismiss, the court must assess whether there is excludable time and/or excusable delay. [...] Pa. R.Crim. P. 600(C), (G). Even where a violation of Rule 600 has occurred, we recognize: The motion to dismiss the charges should be denied if the Commonwealth exercised due diligence and ... the circumstances occasioning the postponement were beyond the control of the Commonwealth. Due diligence is a fact-specific concept that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Due diligence does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but rather a showing by the Commonwealth that a reasonable effort has been put forth. Reasonable effort includes such actions as the Commonwealth listing the case for trial prior to the run date to ensure that [the] defendant was brought to trial within the time prescribed by Rule 600. Commonwealth v. Aaron, 804 A.2d 39, 43-44 (Pa.Super.2002). See also [Commonwealth v.] Hill, [ 558 Pa. 238, 264 , 736 A.2d 578, 592 (1999)] (finding Commonwealth exercised due diligence when it initially scheduled trial well within time requirements of Rule 600 but trial was delayed by actions of defendant beyond Commonwealth’s control). Further, this Court has held the Commonwealth exercised reasonable effort when within the run date the Commonwealth was ready to commence trial and was prevented from doing so by ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 408 - Commonwealth v. Malgieri

3. “The proper scope of review.. .is limited to the evidence on the record of the Rule 600 evidentiary hearing, and the findings of the trial court. An appellate court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Additionally, when considering the trial court’s ruling, this Court is not permitted to ignore the dual purpose behind Rule 600. Rule 600 serves two equally important functions: (1) the protection of the accused’s speedy trial rights, and (2) the protection of society. In determining whether an accused’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, consideration must be given to society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases, both to restrain those guilty of crime and to deter those contemplating it. However, the administrative mandate of Rule 600 was not designed to insulate the criminally accused from good faith prosecution delayed through no fault of the Commonwealth. So long as there has been no misconduct on the part of the Commonwealth in an effort to evade the fundamental speedy trial rights of an accused, Rule 600 must be construed in a manner consistent with society’s right to punish and deter crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 357 - Commonwealth v. Jones