Case Law For Bucks County Speedy Trial

We have had a discussion about Rule 600 and the speedy trial rule in Bucks County cases.  The summary is that if the Commonwealth (i.e. the prosecutors) did not follow-up on the case appropriately, then the matter can be dismissed.  

An important case for a Bucks County criminal lawyer to be aware of is Commonwealth v. Kearse, 2005 PA Super 410 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).

Here's the relevant portion of the case [emphasis added],

It was clear that defendant was brought to trial after expiration of the Rule 600 time period, so the question became whether the Commonwealth had acted with due diligence in bringing him to trial. The correct standard looked to whether the Commonwealth had shown due diligence throughout the period the prosecution was pending. Although it was not defendant's fault that his co-defendant's counsel failed to show up several times, necessitating delays in holding a preliminary hearing, it was not the Commonwealth's fault either. Furthermore, the Commonwealth was not under any duty to seek severance of defendants in order to eliminate delays. Finally, any error the trial court might have committed in looking to whether defendant had been prejudiced by the delay was harmless. The balancing test the trial court had applied in determining absence of prejudice was entirely irrelevant where the speedy trial claim was based on Rule 600 rather than on constitutional rules.

The court further delineated that the standard the Commonwealth has to overcome is a "preponderance of the evidence".  But, the court continued,

When evaluating Pa. R. Crim. P. 600, there need be no discussion of whether a defendant is prejudiced because prejudice is shown simply by proving that the defendant suffered 365 days of non-excludable pretrial delay under facts showing that the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence. Instead, a prejudice analysis is proper when evaluating whether the delay violated the defendant's right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Pa. Const. art. I, § 9. In that instance, the following test is implemented (1) whether the delay itself was sufficiently long to be presumptively prejudicial; and, if so, (2) whether the delay is justified under the balancing test of Barker v. Wingo. The balancing test analyzes four factors: the length of the delay; the reason for the delay; the defendant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial; and, any prejudice to the defendant arising from the delay.

Supreme Court Case Law

Another important case is Barker v. Wingo from the U.S. Supreme Court that the PA Superior Court referenced in Commonwealth v. Kearse.  The relevant portion of that case is, 

As a balancing test, the Court adopted four factors to be considered in determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether a defendant has been prejudiced by the lack of a speedy trial:

1. the length of delay,
2. the reason for the delay,
3. the time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right, and
4. the degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.

So, as you can see, it all comes down to whether the trial was delayed by the Commonwealth and why it was delayed.  Was the officer on vacation?  Was evidence lost?  Did they just forget (it happens)?