Rule 600 given strong teeth by Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave strong teeth to Rule 600 in a case decided two days ago (Commonwealth v. Harth). Rule 600 gives the Commonwealth 365 days to bring a case to trial, subtracting delays caused outside the control and due diligence of prosecutors. While the rule seems clear cut enough, the exceptions had swallowed the rule. Over the years prosecutors argued that the defense could not prove a lack of due diligence, that delays were caused by Courts, and various other whimsical arguments that often carried the day. In Harth the Supreme Court made it clear that it is the Commonwealth’s burden to prove due diligence before it can argue that any time should be excluded from the calculation. Thus, where the prosecutor had not provided discovery to the defense, a subsequent delay caused by the Court due to the Pope’s visit was not excluded from the calculation.

This will never be more relevant than in the coming year, where many cases have been delayed more than a year due to the pandemic. The Supreme Court issued emergency orders permitting the suspension of Rule 600 during the pandemic. The question that must be raised now is was all operation of the rule suspended, or is this a delay caused by the courts, but for which a prosecutor must first show due diligence before she can argue for exclusion of the time? Even if the suspension of the Rule is upheld as a complete bar to Rule 600 dismissals, this will be a bellweather case. Prosecutors often fail to provide the defense with discovery until the very end of the case – many times on the very day of trial. If the defense can show the prosecution was in possession of such discovery early in the case the prosecution won’t be able to establish due diligence and thus won’t be able to argue for any excludable time. Many cases will be dismissed.

The seriousness of the charges has nothing to do with Rule 600. In Harth’s case he was convicted of Burglary and Robbery and sentenced to 8-16 years in state prison. Not only was he released from jail, but the conviction was reversed and his charges dismissed. The prosecution had argued for a remand to the trial court to establish due diligence, but the Court held that would be an unfair extra bite at the apple, since the DA was given an opportunity to establish due diligence by the trial court and offered nothing meaningful to establish it.

Just a few days ago we wrote about the Supreme Court giving local courts authority to suspend Rule 600 until August 31. It didn’t seem like there was much hope for Rule 600 relief in light of that Order, but now the Harth decision is a game-changer. We expect lots of clients will be contacting us about filing Rule 600 motions in the near future.