explaining that the rules were adopted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers for the purposes of reducing the backlog of criminal cases and providing an objective standard for protection of constitutionally mandated speedy trial rights
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the rules were adopted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers for the purposes of reducing the backlog of criminal cases and providing an objective standard for protection of constitutionally mandated speedy trial rights
- noting Rule 1100 “provide[s] expressly for the exclusion of judicial delays” and declining to find violation of rule because “the Commonwealth met its burden of proving ‘judicial delay’”
- "We adopted Rule 1100 pursuant to our supervisory powers to reduce the backlog of criminal cases in Common Pleas and to provide an objective standard for protection of [a] defendant's speedy trial rights."
- noting “the realities of crowded criminal and civil dockets which overburdened Common Pleas courts must deal with on a day-to-day basis”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McDERMOTT, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the Opinion of the Majority. However, I am compelled to comment further that cases like this one, and other of its ilk argue convincingly for altering the current Rule 1100. Thus, I would modify the Rule in the following manner.
Rather than the current 180 day period, I advocate the adoption of a 270 day period within which to permit prosecution. However, to insure that untried defendants are not unduly confined without an opportunity to have their day in court, I would maintain the 180 day period as the maximum that a defendant could be incarcerated for a given offense while awaiting the commencement of his trial. 1 In such an instance the defendant would be released upon petition of his attorney, but the Commonwealth would be permitted to bring the defendant to trial within the following 90 days. If at the end of 270 days, discounting excludable time under Pa.R.Crim.Pro. 1100(c); and 1100(d), the defendant was not brought to trial, then, and only then, would we impose the drastic sanction of dismissing charges altogether.
. For purposes of calculating this 180 day period the provisions of Pa.R.Crim.Pro. 1100(c), would be inapplicable.