[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 90 MAP 2023 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 700 EDA : 2022, entered on February 1, 2023, v. : Affirming and Remanding the : Judgment of Sentence of the : Montgomery County Court of JASON ANDREW LEAR, : Common Pleas, Criminal Division, at : No. CP-46-CR-0002239-2020 Appellee : entered on February 16, 2022. : : ARGUED: May 15, 2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 91 MAP 2023 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 701 EDA : 2022, entered on February 1, 2023, v. : Affirming and Remanding the : Judgment of Sentence of the : Montgomery County Court of JASON ANDREW LEAR, : Common Pleas, Criminal Division, at : No. CP-46-CR-0002816-2020 Appellee : entered on February 16, 2022. : : ARGUED: May 15, 2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 92 MAP 2023 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 702 EDA : 2022, entered on February 1, 2023, v. : Affirming and Remanding the : Judgment of Sentence of the : Montgomery County Court of JASON ANDREW LEAR, : Common Pleas, Criminal Division, at : Appellee : No. CP-46-CR-0003882-2020 : entered on February 16, 2022. : ARGUED: May 15, 2024
OPINION
JUSTICE DOUGHERTY DECIDED: October 24, 2024 We granted review to determine whether Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure
600 requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate it acted with due diligence while criminal
trials were suspended during a judicial emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 1
1 Rule 600 provides in relevant part:
(A) Commencement of Trial; Time for Trial (1) For the purpose of this rule, trial shall be deemed to commence on the date the trial judge calls the case to trial, or the defendant tenders a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. (2) Trial shall commence within the following time periods. (a) Trial in a court case in which a written complaint is filed against the defendant shall commence within 365 days from the date on which the complaint is filed. *** (C) Computation of Time (1) For purposes of paragraph (A), periods of delay at any stage of the proceedings caused by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has failed to exercise due diligence shall be included in the computation of the time within which trial must commence. Any other periods of delay shall be excluded from the computation. *** (D) Remedies (1) When a defendant has not been brought to trial within the time periods set forth in paragraph (A), at any time before trial, the defendant’s attorney, or the defendant if unrepresented, may file a written motion requesting that (continued…)
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 2 The Superior Court, relying on Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d 600 (Pa. 2021), held
Rule 600 requires such proof, and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing to
determine whether the Commonwealth acted with due diligence. For the reasons that
follow, we now reverse.
On March 16, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Court authorized
president judges to declare judicial emergencies and suspend Rule 600 in their respective
judicial districts. See In re: General Statewide Judicial Emergency, 228 A.3d 1281, 1281-
82 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam) (Statewide Emergency I). 2 The same day, the President
Judge of Montgomery County (hereinafter referred to as “MontCo PJ”) declared a local
judicial emergency and, among other things, ordered Rule 600 suspended during the
period of the local judicial emergency; additional orders extended the judicial emergency
until May 31, 2020. See President Judge Declaration, 3/16/2020 (Original Emergency
Declaration). On May 5, 2020, however, MontCo PJ entered an order rescinding his
previous orders effective May 31, 2020. See President Judge Order, 5/5/2020. 3 On May
28, 2020, MontCo PJ declared the judicial emergency extended until further order of the
court. See President Judge Declaration, 5/28/2020. Finally, on June 3, 2020, MontCO
PJ filed an order noting that the judicial emergency had been extended by filings dated
the charges be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that this rule has been violated. A copy of the motion shall be served on the attorney for the Commonwealth concurrently with filing. The judge shall conduct a hearing on the motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. 2 The Court subsequently ordered a statewide Rule 600 suspension that lasted through
June 1, 2020. See In re: General Statewide Judicial Emergency, 230 A.3d 1015, 1019 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam) (Statewide Emergency II). 3 The parties dispute whether Montgomery County’s May 5th order rescinded the original
emergency declaration or only the emergency orders that followed the original emergency declaration. As we resolve this case based on the text of Rule 600, we do not need to decide this question.
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 3 March 31, 2020, April 14, 2020, and May 28, 2020, and ordered “that any postponement
of criminal case scheduling caused by the declaration of this judicial emergency, from
March 12, 2020 through the expiration of the judicial emergency, shall be considered a
court postponement and shall constitute excludable time for purposes of the application
of [Rule 600].” President Judge Order, 6/3/2020.
The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reopened in various stages.
Court facilities reopened on June 1, 2020, but with limited in-person hearings. See
Montgomery County Phase II Reopening Statement at 1,
https://montgomerycountypa.gov/Archive/ViewFile/Item/5215 (last visited Oct. 21, 2024).
Phase II began on July 20, 2020, but the only criminal hearings held in person were for
violations of probation and parole, summary criminal appeals, and arraignments. See id.
at 5-7. Civil cases also remained on hold at this time. See id. at 7. However, custody
proceedings in the court’s family division began to be held in-person to “provide stability
for those children who are affected by the uncertainty caused by custody litigation.” Id.
at 3-4. Phase III was implemented on October 5, 2020, and brought about the initiation
of non-jury criminal, non-jury civil, and juvenile delinquency trials. See Montgomery
County Phase III Reopening Statement,
https://www.montgomerycountypa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5274 (last visited
Oct. 21, 2024). The protocols adopted by the Court, however, required pending criminal
cases to first proceed to a triage conference to determine whether a plea agreement could
be reached or if the parties would agree to proceed to a bench trial, as the court was still
not prepared to conduct jury trials. See Montgomery County Criminal Bench Trials
Protocol at 1, https://www.montgomerycountypa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5272
(last visited Oct. 21, 2024). These conferences were only held at a rate of twelve per day.
See id.
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 4 On June 21, 2021, this Court ordered the Unified Judicial System to return to pre-
pandemic status, fully opening courthouses and other judicial facilities. See Order, In re:
General Statewide Judicial Emergency, No. 553 Judicial Administration Docket (Pa. filed
June 21, 2021) (per curiam). However, the order also allowed local judicial emergencies
to remain in effect until August 31, 2021, if such emergencies suspended Rule 600. See
id.
Meanwhile, criminal complaints were filed against appellee Jason Andrew Lear on
May 19, June 8, and July 17, 2020, in connection with the thefts of snowplowing
equipment and an incident in which he threw a bicycle at a police officer. These matters
sat in abeyance during the various phases of the Montgomery County Court of Common
Pleas’ reopening. Finally, on June 22, 2021, Lear’s triage conference was scheduled for
August 10, 2021. At the conference, Lear requested a bench trial. Thereafter, the trial
court ordered trial to begin on November 1, 2021, 531 days after the Commonwealth filed
its first complaint against him, 511 days after the second complaint was filed, and 472
after the third complaint was filed. On October 21, 2021, Lear filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 600(D)(1). The court heard argument on the Rule 600 motion on the
day of trial and denied the motion, concluding “the delay in trying this case is a direct
result of the judicial emergency and in accordance with Judge DelRicci’s order as the
President Judge[.]” N.T., 11/1/21 at 8. As the court further explained, “the earliest date
for the cessation of the Rule 600 suspension was when the first criminal jury trial resumed
in this judicial district, at which time Montgomery County court leaders determined jury
trials were safe to resume. The first open date for criminal jury trials was July 12, 2021.
Computing the time between the resumption of jury trials and the bench trial for [Lear]
would still place the trial comfortably within the 365 non-excludable days. Therefore, the
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 5 Commonwealth did not delay in bringing this case to trial[.]” Trial Court Opinion,
4/15/2022, at 18.
Following the nonjury trial, Lear was convicted of aggravated assault, theft by
unlawful taking, and related offenses, and sentenced to five to twelve years’
imprisonment. Lear’s post-sentence motion was denied, and he appealed to the Superior
Court.
In a unanimous published opinion, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court
vacated the judgment of sentence, reversed the trial court’s decision denying Lear’s Rule
600 motion, and remanded for a hearing under Rule 600(D). Commonwealth v. Lear,
290 A.3d 709 (Pa. Super. 2023). The panel stated: “Lear argues that although
Montgomery County declared a judicial emergency, the delay in his cases was not
excludable when it was feasible to hold trial, noting that other court divisions and other
counties held trials while his case was pending.” Id. at 718. The panel then quoted the
text of Rule 600 and explained the Rule 600 analysis begins with determining the
“mechanical run date,” which is 365 days after the criminal complaint was filed. Id. The
panel further explained that then the “adjusted run date” must be calculated by adding
any time that is excludable from the computation under Rule 600(C)(1), and a case is
properly dismissed under Rule 600 if it is not brought to trial by the adjusted run date. Id.
at 718-19.
According to the panel, two cases guided its analysis: Harth and Commonwealth
v. Carl, 276 A.3d 743 (Pa. Super. 2022). The Harth Court held “before a trial court
excludes time from its Rule 600 time computation on the basis of ‘judicial delay,’” the
Commonwealth must “demonstrate that it acted with due diligence,” Harth, 252 A.3d at
617, while in Carl, the Superior Court noted that any period during which Rule 600 was
suspended should be excluded and added to the adjusted run date regardless of the
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 6 Commonwealth’s diligence, Carl, 276 A.3d at 751. Based on Harth and Carl, the panel
held: “If an order unambiguously suspends Rule 600 without qualification, then the period
of the suspension is added to the [adjusted] run date without considering the
Commonwealth’s diligence. Alternatively, if an order characterizes a delay as a court
postponement, then that period is only excluded if the trial court determines after a
hearing that the Commonwealth exercised due diligence through the life of the case.”
Lear, 290 A.3d at 719 (internal citations omitted).
The panel then examined the COVID-19 emergency orders entered in
Montgomery County, and based its ultimate decision on its interpretation of them. Initially,
the panel rejected Lear’s argument the county was actually able to hold jury trials during
the relevant period, like other counties did, because this Court expressly authorized
president judges to suspend Rule 600. See id. at 720, citing Statewide Emergency I, 228
A.3d at 1282. Nevertheless, the panel determined “the plain language of the orders
reflects that Montgomery County did not continue its unqualified suspension of Rule 600
beyond May 31, 2020” because the May 5th order rescinded all previous orders and
“[t]here were no later orders suspending Rule 600.” Id. The panel concluded
“Montgomery County opted to order on June 3, 2020, that any emergency-related delay
‘shall be considered a court postponement and shall constitute excludable time’ under
Rule 600(C).” Id., quoting President Judge Order, 6/3/2020.
Finding no order suspending Rule 600 after May 31, 2020, the panel directed the
trial court on remand to determine whether the Commonwealth exercised due diligence
for any period of judicial delay occurring between June 3, 2020 and August 31, 2021.
See id. The panel directed that the case be dismissed if the Commonwealth does not
meet its burden. See id. The panel denied the Commonwealth’s application for
reconsideration.
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 7 We granted review to consider the following question as phrased by the
Commonwealth: Whether a court must assess the Commonwealth’s due diligence during a worldwide pandemic for purposes of Rule 600 before it excludes delay attributable to a local judicial emergency during which the president judge cancelled and suspended all trials, suspended Rule 600 and otherwise excluded judicial delay caused by the judicial emergency, and implemented strict procedures to protect the public? Commonwealth v. Lear, 305 A.3d 541 (Pa. 2023) (per curiam). We generally review Rule
600 decisions for an abuse of discretion, but our review is plenary where “the dispositive
question implicates legal issues[.]” Harth, 252 A.3d at 614 n.13.
First, we recognize the Commonwealth and Lear have different opinions on how
the emergency orders below should be interpreted, specifically, whether MontCo PJ’s
unqualified suspension of Rule 600 ended on June 3, 2020 or remained in effect until
August 31, 2021. However, as stated above, we need not decide this particular dispute
because we may resolve the present appeal based on the plain text of Rule 600 and the
fact that criminal jury trials in Montgomery County were judicially suspended from the
dates the criminal complaints against Lear were filed until July 12, 2021. 4
Regarding the appropriate application of Rule 600, the Commonwealth argues
neither this Court’s holding in Harth nor the text of Rule 600 requires a court to assess
the Commonwealth’s diligence before excluding delay caused by a pandemic and the
related judicial emergency. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 25. The Commonwealth
contends the panel below “erred when it used the ‘judicial delay’ framework that applies
to an individual judge’s congested court calendar to analyze delay caused by a worldwide
4 Although Lear was ultimately tried in a bench trial, he did not waive his constitutional
right to a jury trial until the triage conference on August 10, 2021. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/15/2022, at 17 (“A review of the docket confirms that at a pre-trial conference on August 10, 2021, [Lear] requested a bench trial[.]”).
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 8 pandemic[.]” Id. The Commonwealth claims the judicial delay framework used in Harth
is inapt, and instead, the time at issue here “should have been excluded as an ‘other
period of delay’ or delay not caused by the Commonwealth, which is excludable under
the rule without a diligence inquiry.” Id., quoting Pa.R.Crim.P 600(C).
Although the Commonwealth acknowledges Harth memorialized an exception to
the general rule excluding delay not caused by the Commonwealth where judicial delay
is involved, it argues judicial delay should be limited to “delay caused by an individual
judge and that particular judge’s congested calendar or other scheduling issues.” Id. at
26. Put simply, the Commonwealth contends “a worldwide pandemic that leads to
statewide disaster emergency declarations and the local declaration of a judicial
emergency is not the same as a single judge’s ‘congested calendar’ or ‘other scheduling
problems’ considered in Harth.” Id. at 27. According to the Commonwealth, the reason
for this dichotomy is simple: even if “the lower court [had] been available in Harth, trial
could not have commenced because the Commonwealth never met its discovery
obligations” and the Commonwealth “cannot benefit from the trial judge’s congested court
calendar”; but here, “Montgomery County did not have a jury trial calendar or any jury
trials scheduled from March 12, 2020 to July 12, 2021.” Id. at 29-30.
The Commonwealth contends there is no need to force this type of pandemic-
related delay into the Harth judicial delay framework because the text of Rule 600
“expressly provides for the exclusion of delays that do not fit within that framework,
explaining that ‘[a]ny other periods of delay shall be excluded from the computation.’” Id.
at 31, quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C). Further, the Commonwealth notes this Court has
recognized as much post-Harth by stating, “where delay is not caused by the
Commonwealth . . ., it must be excluded from the computation of the Rule 600 deadline.”
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 9 Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson, 289 A.3d 959, 982 (Pa. 2023). 5 The
Commonwealth again emphasizes that “[t]his case involves an unexpected pandemic that
created chaos across the world and upended the day-to-day operations of the
courthouse[,] . . . [t]he Commonwealth did not cause the pandemic, and it had no control
over the judicial emergency response to COVID-19.” Id. As such, the Commonwealth
contends “this delay is excludable under the text of the rule as ‘any other periods of
delay.’” Id., quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C). 6
In response, Lear argues the panel below correctly interpreted Harth as applying
to all types of judicial delay, including emergency-related court closures that affect every
judge in a particular county. See Appellee’s Brief at 33-34. Lear points out that Harth
itself concerned emergency-type judicial delays caused by the September 2015 Papal
Visit to Philadelphia. See id. at 34. Lear claims Harth “explicitly rejected the notion that
judicial delay could create an extended period where no examination of due diligence was
warranted[,]” based on the following language:
5 The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association (PDAA) filed an amicus curiae brief in
support of the Commonwealth in which it agrees with the Commonwealth that the present case is distinguishable from Harth. See PDAA Brief at 11-12. PDAA observes that “[t]he purpose of Rule 600 is two-fold, it protects a defendant’s speedy trial rights and seeks to protect the interest of society/the Commonwealth in prosecuting crime[,]” and requiring the Commonwealth to prove its diligence after it relied on orders suspending Rule 600 “completely ignores the dual purpose of Rule 600[.]” Id. at 12. 6 The Commonwealth also summarizes numerous Superior Court cases holding COVID-
19 delay as excludable without consideration of the Commonwealth’s diligence to stress that the decision below is an outlier that conflicts with numerous other Superior Court decisions. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 32-40, citing Commonwealth v. Faison, 297 A.3d 810 (Pa. Super. 2023); Carl, 276 A.3d at 751; Commonwealth v. Feazell, 1488 MDA 2021, 2022 WL 3349335 (Pa. Super., Aug. 15, 2022) (unpublished memorandum); Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 1489 MDA 2021, 2023 WL 2566440 (Pa. Super., Mar. 20, 2023) (unpublished memorandum); Commonwealth v. Carbaugh, 410 MDA 2022, 2022 WL 17348880 (Pa. Super., Dec. 1, 2022) (unpublished memorandum); Commonwealth v. McDonald, 218 MDA 2022, 2023 WL 7481625 (Pa. Super., Nov. 13, 2023) (unpublished memorandum).
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 10 We do not suggest that the Commonwealth must be prepared to proceed to trial the moment that a criminal case is initiated; rather, the Commonwealth must utilize that year to prepare itself for trial, as is required under Rule 600(A). We have not altered that timeline, but, instead, seek merely to ensure that the Commonwealth does not summarily rely upon the judiciary as an excuse to forego preparation for pending criminal cases, consistent with the language and purpose of Rule 600. Indeed, under the dissent’s approach, were the judiciary unable to proceed with a trial within the first year after a case was initiated, the Commonwealth could do nothing during that delay, and then take another year to prepare its case.
Id. at 34-35, quoting Harth, 252 A.3d at 618 n.15 (emphasis in original).
Lear also contends the Commonwealth’s reliance on Johnson is misplaced as this
Court in that case specifically stated, “judicial delay is delay caused by the court, rather
than the Commonwealth, and is likewise excludable if the Commonwealth exercised
diligence during that time.” Id. at 35, quoting Johnson, 289 A.3d at 982. Lear claims the
Commonwealth’s approach to Harth is unworkable as it would “create[ ] a morass in which
lower courts must determine whether Harth’s two-step framework applies or whether the
cause of judicial delay must be first examined.” Id. at 36. According to Lear, this would
“invite[ ] a never-ending stream of factual scenarios through which lower courts would
need to navigate in an effort to apply the proper standard.” Id. In Lear’s view, “[t]here is
simply no reason why [the Harth] analysis cannot be extended to an assessment . . . of
the Commonwealth’s due diligence during the post-June 1, 2020 pandemic period.” Id.
For all these reasons, Lear asserts the Superior Court properly remanded his case for the
trial court to assess the Commonwealth’s due diligence. See id. at 40-42.
In reply, the Commonwealth denies the standard it forwards is unworkable, as any
emergency-related closure is obviously beyond the control of both the courts and the
Commonwealth, and there is no reason to assess the Commonwealth’s due diligence
because trial could not possibly have occurred in any event. See Commonwealth’s Reply
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 11 Brief at 22-23. The Commonwealth insists that forcing it to prove due diligence during an
emergency “flies in the face of the second purpose of Rule 600: protecting society’s right
to effective prosecution of criminal cases.” Id. at 23.
Rule 600 requires that “[t]rial in a court case in which a written complaint is filed
against the defendant shall commence within 365 days from the date on which the
complaint is filed.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). To decide whether the rule was violated,
“a court must first calculate the ‘mechanical run date,’ which is 365 days after the
complaint was filed, and then must account for any ‘excludable time[.]’” Johnson, 289
A.3d at 981 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Rule 600 explains the computation
of time as follows: “periods of delay at any stage of the proceedings caused by the
Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has failed to exercise due diligence shall be
included in the computation of the time within which trial must commence. Any other
periods of delay shall be excluded from the computation.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1).
As this Court unanimously clarified post-Harth, the first sentence of Rule 600(C)(1)
expresses the general rule: “Rule 600 establishes two requirements that must be met for
delay to count toward the 365-day deadline: (1) the delay must be caused by the
Commonwealth; and (2) the Commonwealth must have failed to exercise due diligence.”
Johnson, 289 A.3d at 982 (emphasis added); see id. (“Put differently, where delay is not
caused by the Commonwealth or delay caused by the Commonwealth is not the result of
lack of diligence, it must be excluded from the computation of the Rule 600 deadline.”)
(emphasis added). The second sentence of Rule 600(C)(1) then explains that “[a]ny other
periods of delay” — meaning any periods of delay not caused by the Commonwealth or
not resulting from the Commonwealth’s lack of due diligence — are “exclud[able]” and
are removed from the computation of the Rule 600 deadline. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1).
Once the “excludable time” is calculated, this time is added to the “mechanical run date”
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 12 to produce the “adjusted run date,” which is the deadline for the Commonwealth to bring
the defendant to trial under Rule 600. See Johnson, 289 A.3d at 981-83. 7
Harth announced a limited exception to the general rule in certain cases involving
“judicial delay.” See 252 A.3d at 603 (“we find that a trial court may invoke ‘judicial delay’
in order to deny a defendant’s Rule 600 motion to dismiss only after the Commonwealth
has demonstrated that it complied with the due diligence requirements of Rule 600 at all
relevant periods throughout the life of the case”). That case involved a number of dates
where Harth’s criminal trial was continued. Some continuances were explained in docket
entries, such as those stemming from the 2015 Papal Visit to Philadelphia, 8 and the
Commonwealth’s refusal to sever Harth’s case from that of his co-defendant, while others
were seemingly unexplained. See id. at 603-05. However, the critical fact was that the
7 The dissent insists we have “circumvent[ed] Rule 600’s order of operations” and “misconstrue[d] Rule 600’s analytical sequencing.” Dissenting Opinion at 12, 14. But it is the dissent that reads the language of the rule out of order. Again, the pertinent computational provision provides that “periods of delay at any stage of the proceedings caused by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has failed to exercise due diligence shall be included in the computation of the time within which trial must commence. Any other periods of delay shall be excluded from the computation.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, “[t]he first thing that the Rule instructs courts to do, when determining whether time is excludable” is not, as the dissent claims, “an assessment of the Commonwealth’s diligence[.]” Dissenting Opinion at 14. Rather, “the path expressly prescribed by the rule” is to first assess whether the Commonwealth caused the delay in question. Id. Moreover, we do not “disregard[] the possibility that it will be the Commonwealth’s lack of due diligence that caused the delay.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We simply recognize, in accordance with the plain text of the rule, that the causation analysis precedes the due diligence inquiry, and it is only when the Commonwealth both caused the delay and lacked due diligence that the delay is properly included in the Rule 600 calculation. 8 Due to the Pope’s visit, the courts of the First Judicial District in Philadelphia County
were closed from 5 P.M. on September 22, 2015 to 9 A.M. on September 29, 2015. See In re: Administrative Closure of the Courts and Offices of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania September 23, 2015 to September 28, 2015 (Administrative Governing Board of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania No 01 of 2015), https://www.courts.phila.gov/pdf/notices/2015/Papal-Visit-Operational-Changes- Notice.pdf (last visited Oct. 21, 2024).
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 13 Commonwealth failed to complete discovery on numerous occasions and even passed
fifteen pieces of discovery on the morning scheduled for trial. See id. at 604-06, 622 (“the
record here amply demonstrates that the Commonwealth failed to complete its discovery
obligations through the date of trial”). Harth filed a Rule 600 motion, which was denied,
and he appealed to the Superior Court after he was convicted and sentenced. The
Superior Court ordered a remand to the trial court to conduct a hearing to clarify the record
with respect to the cause of each continuance, the Commonwealth’s readiness for trial,
and the Commonwealth’s due diligence or lack thereof. Harth petitioned this Court for
allowance of appeal, and we granted review.
Harth requested that all the delay in his case be included in the Rule 600
calculation since the Commonwealth never completed discovery and was therefore not
diligent in bringing the case to trial. More specifically, Harth asked this Court to adopt
Justice Wecht’s concurrence in Commonwealth v. Mills, 162 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2017), which
argued that trial courts must assess the Commonwealth’s diligence before labeling a
continuance “judicial delay.” See Harth, 252 A.3d at 610-11, citing Mills, 162 A.3d at 325-
27 (Wecht, J., concurring). The Commonwealth, on the other hand, relied on the text of
Rule 600(C)(1) to argue periods of delay caused by the trial judge’s calendar should be
excluded from the Rule 600 calculation. The Commonwealth observed, consistent with
our explanation above, that Rule 600 provides two requirements before a period of delay
may be included in the computation ― (1) the Commonwealth caused the delay; and (2)
the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence ― and the first requirement is not met
when the delay is caused by the trial judge’s calendar rather than the Commonwealth.
In a sharply divided 4-3 decision, with this author writing for the dissenters, this
Court held “a trial court may invoke ‘judicial delay’ in order to deny a defendant’s Rule
600 motion to dismiss only after the Commonwealth has demonstrated that it complied
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 14 with the due diligence requirements of Rule 600 at all relevant periods throughout the life
of the case.” Id. at 603. The Harth majority reasoned that “requiring the Commonwealth
to demonstrate that it acted with due diligence before a trial court excludes time from its
Rule 600 time computation on the basis of ‘judicial delay’ comports with the language of
Rule 600(C)(1) and its commentary, the purpose behind the rule, and our prior
jurisprudence interpreting Rule 600 and its predecessor.” Id. at 617. The Court then
determined a remand was unnecessary as the Commonwealth had neglected to fulfill its
discovery obligations without providing a reasonable explanation for this deficiency and,
as a result, failed to prosecute Harth’s case with due diligence. See id. at 621-22.
Although the facts of Harth involved other sorts of delays in addition to judicial
delays, including delays due to the Papal Visit and the lack of severance, the Court’s
holding regarding the Commonwealth’s due diligence obligation, which is what binds
future decisions, was explicitly limited to “judicial delay.” Id. at 603, 617. More precisely,
though, it was about judicial delay in conjunction with other periods of delay caused by
the Commonwealth. Delay actually occasioned by the Commonwealth was essential to
the Harth majority’s analysis, because without it, the second sentence of Rule 600(C)(1)
would have controlled rather than the first. See Johnson, 289 A.3d at 982 (“judicial delay
is delay caused by the court”); Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1) (“Any other periods of delay [not
caused by the Commonwealth] shall be excluded from the computation.”). In those
limited circumstances, where the Commonwealth caused multiple periods of delay and
attempted to excuse them by pointing to other periods of judicial delay, the Harth majority
determined “a trial court must first determine whether the Commonwealth has met its
obligation to act with due diligence throughout the life of the case; if the Commonwealth
meets its burden of proving due diligence, only then may the trial court rely upon its own
congested calendar or other scheduling problems as justification for denying the
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 15 defendant’s motion.” Harth, 252 A.3d at 618. In establishing this exception to the general
rule, the Harth majority expressed that Rule 600(C)(1) is “not a model of clarity,” hence
its decision to turn to the Rule’s “commentary, the purpose behind the rule, and our prior
jurisprudence interpreting Rule 600 and its predecessor.” Id. at 617.
Unlike Harth, this case does not involve judicial delay in conjunction with delay
caused by the Commonwealth. In fact, it involves neither. Judicial delay is delay caused
by an individual judge’s “own congested calendar or other scheduling problems[.]” Id. at
618; see also id. at 619 (“trial courts must assess the Commonwealth’s due diligence
before relying upon their own scheduling difficulties and congested court calendars as
justification for denying Rule 600 motions to dismiss”). Here, Lear’s trial was not delayed
because of the assigned trial judge’s heavy caseload or because the judge had other
scheduling conflicts or difficulties. Rather, trial was postponed because of a global
pandemic, during which emergency orders completely closed the Montgomery County
Courthouse for an extended period of time, with narrow exceptions not relevant here. See
President Judge Emergency Order, 3/16/2020 at 1. When court reopened on a limited
basis, proceedings involved stringent protocols that limited the kinds of hearings that
could take place as well as the pace and volume of proceedings. See President Judge
Order, 5/5/2020; Montgomery County Phase II Reopening Statement at 1,
https://montgomerycountypa.gov/Archive/ViewFile/Item/5215 (last visited Oct. 21, 2024).
Importantly, criminal jury trials were suspended entirely from March 12, 2020 (before the
criminal complaints against Lear were filed) to July 12, 2021. Moreover, there was no
hearing scheduled in Lear’s criminal matters until August 10, 2021, already more than
365 days from when the Commonwealth filed each set of charges. These circumstances
stand in stark contrast to the situation of a single judge unable to entertain a case because
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 16 of a scheduling problem, and so they are not properly characterized as “judicial delay” as
envisioned by Harth.
Nor can it be seriously argued that the Commonwealth caused the delay from the
filing of the complaints to the triage conference on August 10, 2021. This delay was
necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its concomitant emergency court closures
and restrictive protocols, not anything the Commonwealth did or did not do. Likewise, the
Commonwealth is not alleged to have caused any other periods of delay during the
relevant timeframe.
In the absence of judicial delay in conjunction with some period of delay caused
by the Commonwealth, the limited Harth exception does not apply. The general rule
instead controls. Applying that rule here, we conclude that since the Commonwealth was
not responsible for the suspension of all criminal jury trials or the protocols adopted in
Montgomery County in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the time period up until the
August 10, 2021 conference is properly excluded from the Rule 600 computation as an
“other period[ ] of delay.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1). Moreover, because the matter
proceeded to trial within three months on November 1, 2021, well before the adjusted run
date expired, there was no violation of the Rule 600 deadline in this case.
There is good reason not to extend the narrow Harth exception, which itself
constituted an expansive construction of the rule language providing that only delay
“caused by the Commonwealth” should be included in the computation of time, to the
COVID-19 delay here. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1). Delay stemming from the unavailability
of a single judge could conceivably be averted if the Commonwealth is ready to proceed,
as the case could potentially be reassigned to a different judge. On the other hand, when
a global pandemic precipitates a court-wide shutdown followed by a court-wide slowdown,
delay is unavoidable irrespective of the Commonwealth’s diligence. No amount of due
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 17 diligence on the part of the Commonwealth could have possibly hastened Lear’s trial date.
As such, we hold the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic-related emergency court
closures and restrictive protocols do not fall under Harth’s limited exception but, instead,
constitute “other periods of delay” for purposes of Rule 600. 9 And since the
Commonwealth’s diligence is never relevant to the Rule 600 analysis for “other periods
of delay,” we reverse the Superior Court’s decision remanding this case to the trial court
for a hearing to determine whether the Commonwealth acted with due diligence. Because
we hold Rule 600 was not violated in this case, no hearing is necessary. 10
Chief Justice Todd and Justices Mundy, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion.
Justice Wecht files a dissenting opinion in which Justice Donohue joins.
9 It is not hard to imagine other types of delays that fit neatly in this category. For example,
medical-, weather-, and security-related emergencies often lead to court delays, by no fault of the Commonwealth. Such circumstances, like the COVID-19 pandemic, properly constitute “other periods of delay” under Rule 600(C)(1). 10 As should be obvious, we do not endorse the approach taken by the Superior Court.
Whereas the panel below crafted a rule for assessing the validity of Rule 600 suspension orders and then applied that rule to the suspension orders issued by the MontCo PJ, our analysis turns on Rule 600 itself. There is simply no need to parse the suspension orders given our conclusion that, even if Rule 600 was in effect at all relevant times, it was not violated in these circumstances.
[J-40A-2024, J-40B-2024 and J-40C-2024] - 18