Court COVID orders expire but Rule 600 still suspended

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has rescinded the authority of county President Judges to issue COVID-related emergency orders, but extended the suspension of Rule 600 (requiring speedy trials) until August 31. The Court gave local courts until July 6 to be fully reopened and functioning. Previously, such decisions were authorized by the Supreme Court but implemented by emergency orders issued by the President Judge of each county Court of Common Pleas.

This creates an interesting divergence between federal speedy trials rights, which are very forgiving, and have in past cases tolerated 14 or even 20 or 22 month delays in bringing a criminal defendant to trial, and state Rule 600 rights, which were rather rigid and required trial within one year (six months for incarcerated defendants). How can Rule 600 be suspended until August 31 if all Courts are required to be fully operational by July 6? Has the Supreme Court effectively given counties the right to ignore the need to bring defendants to trial promptly if they’ve been waiting the entire pandemic, in jail, to go to trial? And why do the courts need this “bail out” when Rule 600 only penalizes delay caused by the prosecution, and there is only a remedy if the prosecutor failed to exercise due diligence? Is there any chance a court would dismiss a case delayed due to scheduling difficulties resulting from the pandemic in the absence of the Supreme Court’s Order? I don’t see how they could – given the way Rule 600 is written. So what is the purpose of continually authorizing suspension of Rule 600 during the pandemic, and now even after the emergency nature of the pandemic is over?

Has anyone gotten a client’s case dismissed due to delay that was attributable to the pandemic? More likely, has anyone gotten a client released on nominal bail for delay attributable to the pandemic?

We welcome your comments on this issue below! Please shed some light on these questions if you can.