274 Pa. Super. 229 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rule 1100(d)(1) provides that “[i]n determining the period for commencement of trial, there shall be excluded therefrom such period of delay at any stage of the proceedings as results from: (1) the unavailability of the defendant or his attorney.” Mere incarceration in another jurisdiction does not make appellant unavailable. Appellant will be considered unavailable only for the period of time during which his presence could not be secured despite due diligence by the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Richbourgh, 246 Pa.Super. 300 , 369 A.2d 1331 (1977); Commonwealth v. Kovacs, 250 Pa.Super. 66 , 378 A.2d 455 (1977). “There is no question, therefore, that the duty imposed on the Commonwealth by Rule 1100 to bring a defendant to trial within the prescribed period is not affected by the fact of his incarceration elsewhere. . . . ” Commonwealth v. McCafferty, 242 Pa.Super. 218, 224 , 363 A.2d 1239, 1241 (1976).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 288 Pa. Super. 119 - Commonwealth v. Heath