2016 Pa. Super. 75 - Commonwealth v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 was designed “to protect a defendant’s speedy trial rights, as well as society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 136 A.3d 178, 182 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quotation omitted). The Rule mandates, inter alia, that a defendant must be tried on criminal charges no later than 365 days after the criminal complaint is filed. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(1, 3). This straightforward calculation is known as the mechanical run date. See, e.g., [Commonwealth v.] Ramos, 936 A.2d [1097] 1102 [(Pa.Super.2007) ]. However, those periods of delay caused by a defendant are excluded from the computation of the length of time of any pretrial incarceration. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C). Following these exclusions, if any, we arrive at an adjusted run date by extending the mechanical run date to account for these exclusions. See, e.g., Ramos, 936 A.2d at 1102. Any other delay that occurs, despite the Commonwealth’s due diligence, is deemed excusable and results in further adjustments to the effective run date. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(G); see also Ramos, 936 A.2d at 1102 (explaining that “[e]xcusable delay is a legal construct that takes into account delays which occur as a result of circumstances beyond the Commonwealth’s control and despite its due diligence”) (internal punctuation and citation omitted). Thompson, supra, 136 A.3d 178, 182 (emphasis in original).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 116 - Commonwealth v. Dixon · Commonwealth v. Wright

2. “"[T]he Commonwealth must do everything reasonable within its power to guarantee that a trial begins on time," and the Commonwealth has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that it exercised due diligence. "As has been oft stated, [d]ue diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 116 - Commonwealth v. Dixon

3. “[e]xcusable delay is a legal construct that takes into account delays which occur as a result of circumstances beyond the Commonwealth's control and despite its due diligence”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 116 - Commonwealth v. Dixon