Sometimes the Commonwealth will nolle prosequi a case when they realize the charges were improper. Other times, there are more nefarious reasons. A nolle prosequi is a voluntary withdrawal by the Bucks County prosecutor of proceedings on a particular bill or information, which can at any time be retracted to permit revival of proceedings on the original bill or information.
Sometimes, the Commonwealth will seek to nolle pros a case because it is unhappy with what occurred at the preliminary hearing. They want a second bite at the appeal to try to take a Bucks County criminal defense lawyer's client back to add more charges at the preliminary hearing.
One case outlines the potential -- In Rega, the defendant was charged with many violent offenses in five different complaints. He had already been convicted on some of them when the Commonwealth moved to nolle prosequi, without prejudice, some of the others. The appellate court, after noting that rulings on such motions were appealable despite their interlocutory nature, held that the trial court had failed to follow several of the procedures mandated by Pa. R. Crim. P. 585 and case law interpreting the rule. First, there had been no hearing in open court. Second, it was not possible to review whether the reason given by the Commonwealth was valid and reasonable where the Commonwealth had supplied no reason and the trial court had simply inferred what it might be. Finally, according to Pa. R. Crim. P. 600, defendant had a valid speedy trial claim that he had been precluded from raising in opposition to the grant of a motion that might have resulted in indefinite postponement of his prosecution. Therefore, while the appellate court did not rule on the merits, it required the trial court to do so once again. So, the outcome was that the court vacated the order granting the Commonwealth's motion and remanded the matter for a hearing at which the Commonwealth would be required to provide a reasonable basis for the motion and defendant would have an opportunity to contest the motion and present speedy trial claims. Commonwealth v. Rega, 2004 PA Super 330 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). The "Rega Standard" thus states, there are two factors to be considered when a request for a nolle prosequi is made: (1) whether the reason given by the Commonwealth for requesting the nolle prosequi is valid and reasonable, and (2) whether the defendant, at the time the nolle prosequi is requested, has a valid speedy trial claim. Moreover, when a court considers a motion for nolle prosequi, it should afford both parties an opportunity to argue the merits of the motion.
Remember - the "speedy trial claim" is Rule 600. We have gone over includable time in Rule 600, excludable time in Rule 600, and Rule 600 in juvenile matters.