For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 20

*

Discuss this waiver with your client with the same
Using the strategy above, people both in and
seriousness you would discuss the waiver of any
outside my office have had tremendous success with
Discuss thisright.
waiver
Using
the strategy
above,
people
both
in and
30 with your client with the same
constitutional
Rule 600
motions.
Oftentimes,
just
making
it plain
seriousness you would discuss the waiver of any
outside
my office have
success with
to the
Commonwealth
thathad
youtremendous
intend to seriously
Request
discovery early
and in writing. That way,
constitutional
right.30
Rule
600
motions.
Oftentimes,
just
making
it plain
litigate this issue can get you results. It is only one
if the Commonwealth fails to provide requested
to the
you intend
seriously
weapon
inCommonwealth
your arsenal, butthat
because
a win to
means
* Request
discovery
and in writing.
discovery,
any
requiredearly
continuance
will beThat
on way,
litigate
this
issue
can
get
you
results.
It
is
only
discharge, it is a potent weapon that should neverone
if the Commonwealth
fails
provide with
requested
the prosecution.
If you have
to to
follow-up
the
weapon in your arsenal, but because a win means
be overlooked.
discovery, any
required
continuance
willfailed
be onto
Commonwealth
about
discovery
they have
discharge, it is a potent weapon that should never
the
prosecution.
you have tosuch
follow-up
with
hand
over,
be sure toIfmemorialize
requests
in the
be overlooked.
Commonwealth
about discovery they have failed toNOTES:
a writing
such as an email.
1
hand over, be sure to memorialize such requests in 2 Commonwealth v. Mills, 162 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2017).
NOTES:
U.S.
ConSt. Amend. VI; PA. CONST. art. 1, § 9.
If a continuance
is as
required
due to the
a writing such
an email.
3
1
Commonwealth
v. DeBlase,
1995).
Commonwealth
v. Mills,665
162A.2d
A.3d427,
323431
(Pa.(Pa.
2017).
Commonwealth's failure of diligence, be sure to
4
2
Barker
v. C
Wingo,
407 U.S.
514,
530 (1972)
(articulating
the
U.S.
onSt
.
A
mend
.
VI;
PA.
CONST.
art.
1,
§
9.
* If
a continuance
is required
duethe
to continuance
the
put
that
on the record
at the time
3
constitutional
test); Commonwealth
v. Preston,
904(Pa.
A.2d
Commonwealth
v. DeBlase, 665 A.2d
427, 431
1995).
Commonwealth's
failure
ofdoes
diligence,
be in
sure to
4 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (the Barker test is an entirely
1, 10
is requested.
Even if the
judge
not rule
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972) (articulating the
thatyou
on have
the record
atpreserved
the time the
separate
analysis from
Rule
600 and therefore
needs904
to be
constitutional
test);
Commonwealth
v. Preston,
A.2d
yourput
favor,
at least
thecontinuance
issue for
raised
1, separately).
10 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (the Barker test is an entirely
is
requested.
Even
if
the
judge
does
not
rule
in
appeal.
5
Pa.R.Crim.P.
600(2)(a);
separateRule
analysis
from see
Rulealso
600Commonwealth
and therefore needs to be
your favor, you have at least preserved the issue for v. Kearse,
890
A.2d
388,
395
(Pa.
Super. Ct. 2005) (no
raised
separately).
All motions
appeal. to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600 must be
5
"prejudice"
needRule
be shown
to obtain
Rule
600 dismissal).
Pa.R.Crim.P.
600(2)(a);
see also
Commonwealth
made in writing.31 File your client's motion after the
While
600890
hasA.2d
a more
time period,
the(no
sole
v. Rule
Kearse,
388,definitive
395 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 2005)
* All motions
to dismiss
pursuant
to Rule
600
must be focus"prejudice"
of Rule 600need
is on be
theshown
actionto
ofobtain
the Commonwealth.
365-day
period has
elapsed.
If the trial
judge
rules
Rule 600 dismissal).
31
drivers
who
law enforcement
officers
believe
NOTES:
File yourthe
client's
motion
after the Thus,
made
in and
writing.
a constitutional
argument
should betime
forwarded
While
Rule 600 has
a more definitive
period, the sole
against
you
subsequently
Commonwealth
to365-day
be impaired
by
marijuana
but
whose
blood
when
a
delay
prejudices
a
defendant
and
that
delay was
focus
of
Rule
600
is
on
the
action
of
the
Commonwealth.
period
has
elapsed.
If
the
trial
judge
rules
1
Act of April
17,
2016, P.L. 84, No. 16.
causes another substantial period of delay, file
primarily
by the courts.
THC
concentrations
will fall below
this
artificial
Thus,caused
a constitutional
argument should be forwarded
2
against
you motion
and subsequently
theadditional
Commonwealth
21 U.S.C. Rule
§ 812.
6
a threshold."
new
Rule 600
based on this
Pa.R.Crim.P.
600(D)(1).
when a delay prejudices a defendant and that delay was
3
another
substantial
delay, file
75primarily
Pa.C.S.A.
§ 780-104.
caused
by the courts.
timecauses
and litigate
it prior
to anyperiod
trial toofpreserve
an
6
a
new
Rule
600
motion
based
on
this
additional
Pa.R.Crim.P.
Rule
600(D)(1).
Click
here
to
view
and/or print the
objection
to
the
additional
time
period.
The report essentially concludes that more
time and litigate it prior to any trial to preserve an
full
notes
section
for
this article.
are600
needed,
and
more
data
needs to be
Atstudies
the
Rule
after
the
defense
Click here to view and/or print the
objection
tohearing,
the additional
time
period.has
collected,
in facie
ordershowing
to accurately
assess
the link
made
a prima
that the
defendant
full notes section for this article.
between
marijuana
usage after
and impairment
levels.
*
At
the
Rule
600
hearing,
the
defense
has not been brought to trial within 365 days, has
Asmade
evidenced
byfacie
this NHTSA
report,
creating
a per
a prima
showing
that the
defendant
the Commonwealth
bears
the burden
of proving
sehas
concentration
is
premature
and
inadvisable.
not
been
brought toacted
trial within
365 days,
that they
have
nonetheless
with diligence.
the
Commonwealth
the has
burden
ofsuch
proving
ThisWe
means
thatexamine
after thebears
defense
made
Katherine Ernst is an
should
the
choice
ofwith
law diligence.
adopted
that
they
have
nonetheless
acted
a by
prima
showing,
it is the
Commonwealth
thefacie
majority
of states,
what
we can call
appellate
Edwardattorney
F. Sprehawith
is a the
This
means
that aftertothe
defense
has made such
Katherine
Ernst
is an
who
should
be
required
put
on
its
evidence
the "impairment" option, and eliminate the
Montgomery
County
Public
partner at the
Harrisburg
athe
prima
facieshould
showing,
it argue
is the Commonwealth
appellate
attorney
with the
and
defense
only
after
the
zero tolerance and the per se options. These
Law FirmOffice.
of Wagner
Defender's
She
who
should
be
required
to
put
on
its
evidence
Commonwealth
done
Rule 600
Montgomery
County
"impairment" has
states
doso.
notEssentially,
penalize a driver
and
Spreha.
1997,allEdPublic
handles
appealsInfrom
and
the
defense
should
only
argue
after
the
hearing
should
proceed
in
form
almost
identically
unless their ability to drive is impaired by a
Defender's
Office.
started
his career
asShe
a
units,
juvenile
to homicide,
has done
Essentially,
a user
Rule in
600
substance.
AIfmedical
marijuana
tocontrolled
aCommonwealth
suppression
hearing.
theso.
judge
asks you
handlesDistrict
appeals
from all
Deputy
Attorney
and she also formulates
hearing
should
proceed
form almost
identically
states
would
not beinsubject
toevidence,
prosecution
tothese
argue
prior
to the
Commonwealth's
inunits,
the Dauphin
juvenile County
to homicide,
legal strategy for pre-trial
toita clear
suppression
hearing.
If the
asks
you
unless
it was
established
thejudge
driver's
use
make
that
you
couldthat
not
possibly
argue
District
Attorney's
office.
and she also formulates
and trial units. Katherine
graduated
Magna
Cum
to
argue
prior
to the
Commonwealth's
evidence,
marijuana
made
them
unsafe
to drive.
This
He
prosecuted
criminal
onofbehalf
of your
client
until
you know
what
the
legal
strategy
for
pre-trial
make itaclear
that
you could
not possibly
Laude
from Loyola
Law
School,
New Orleans
provides
common-sense
cases including
DUI's
and
administered
the ARD
Commonwealth's
evidence
ofsolution.
diligence
is. argue
and trial units. Katherine graduated Magna Cum
on behalf of your client until you know what the
inprogram
2007 and
was working
on law review.
She practiced
while
in the Dauphin
County
Laude
from Loyola
Law School,
Orleans
If the
Commonwealth
appears
at
the
Rule 600
While
the future of
medical
and the
Commonwealth's
evidence
ofmarijuana
diligence
is.
Attorney's
joinedNew
his present
atDistrict
Kaufman,
Coren office.
& Ress He
in Philadelphia
out
infirm
2007
and
was
on law
review. She
practiced
hearing
doeslevels
not present
any evidence
impactand
of THC
on impairment
will that
continue
law
in
2002
where
he
defends
citizens
of law school, and thereafter did work in the
Ifbe
the
Commonwealth
appears
atfurther
the Rule
600
it*to
acted
with
diligence-for
instance,
they
did not
debated,
studied and
likely
at Kaufman,
Coren
& Ress A
ingraduate
Philadelphia
out
accused
of criminal
conduct.
intersection
of horseracing
law and
§1983of
forBishop
a
hearing
and
does
not
present
any
evidence
that
legislated,
it is important
Pennsylvania
to fully
bring
in the officer
to testifyfor
to the
attempts made
McDevitt
School,
the University
of Pittsburgh
of law High
school,
and thereafter
did work
in the
number
of
years
before
following
her
passion
it acted
with
diligence-for
instance, they
did not
its apprehend
approach
to
the
interaction
between
andintersection
Widener University
Schoollaw
of Law,
he hasfor a
toevolve
find
and
the
defendant-argue
that
of horseracing
and §1983
for
indigent
criminal
defense.
bring
in
the
officer
to
testify
to
the
attempts
made
medical
marijuana
and
the
safe
operation
of
a
been
living
in
Central
Pennsylvania
since
they have not met their burden because the burden
number of years before following her 1978.
passion
to
find
and
apprehend
the
defendant-argue
that
motor
vehicle.
We
can
still
find
a
way
to
keep
of proof includes the burden of production and
for indigent criminal defense.
they
have
not
metare
their
burden
burden
the
impaired
drivers
offnot
the
road because
and the the
nonShare this article
arguments
of counsel
evidence.
impaired
out of the
courtroom.
of proofmedical
includesusers
the burden
of production
and
Share this article
arguments of counsel are not evidence.
PANTONE

2955C

7406C

CMYK

PANTONE

90/78/39/30

9/22/91/0

RGB

2955C

7406C

CMYK

22/58/92

234/194/56

HEXIDECIMAL

90/78/39/30

9/22/91/0

RGB

*

#153A5B

#EAC137

22/58/92

234/194/56

HEXIDECIMAL

#153A5B

*

*

#EAC137

About the Author
About
the
Author
About
the
Author

*

PANTONE

2955C

7406C

CMYK

90/78/39/30

9/22/91/0

RGB

20

For The Defense l Vol. 5, Issue 1

22/58/92

Vol. 4, Issue 4

l

For The Defense

9

234/194/56

HEXIDECIMAL

Vol. 4, Issue 4

l

For The Defense

9


https://nxt-staging-books.s3.amazonaws.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol5_issue1_2020/src/docs/TroubleontheRoad.Spreha.Endnotes1.29.2020.pdf

For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1

Contents
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 1
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 2
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - Contents
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 4
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 5
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 6
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 7
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 8
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 9
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 10
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 11
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 12
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 13
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 14
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 15
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 16
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 17
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 18
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 19
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 20
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 21
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 22
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 23
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 24
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 25
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 26
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 27
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 28
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 29
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 30
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 31
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 32
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 33
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 34
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 35
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 36
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 37
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 38
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 39
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 40
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 41
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 42
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 43
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 44
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol5_issue4_2020
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol5_issue3_2020
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol5_issue2_2020
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol5_issue1_2020
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol4_issue4_2019
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol4_issue3_2019
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol4_issue2_2019
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol4_issue1_2019
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol3_issue4_2018
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol3_issue3_2018
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol3_issue2_2018
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol3_issue1_2018
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pacdl/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol2_issue4_2017
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pacdl/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol2_issue3_2017
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pacdl/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol2_issue2_2017
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pacdl/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol2_issue1_2017
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol1_issue4_2016
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol1_issue3_2016
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol1_issue2_2016
https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol1_issue1_2016
https://www.nxtbookmedia.com