For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 1 - 25

constitutional right.30
Rule 600 motions. Oftentimes, just making it plain
to the Commonwealth that you intend to seriously
Discuss
this waiver
with your
client
the same
* Request
discovery
early
and with
in writing.
That way, Using the strategy above, people both in and
this
issue3-12,
cantremendous
get you results.
It iswith
only one
seriousness
would
discuss
the waiver
of any
my
office
have
had
success
sources
of
taint.
These
include,
problematic
questions,outsideplitigate
sicologia
JuriDica
(2015).
if theyou
Commonwealth
fails
to
provide
requested
30
4weapon
in your
arsenal,
butmaking
because
win means
constitutional
right.
motions.
Oftentimes,
just
plain
repeated
questions,
other situational
pressure
such
Ceci and
M. Bruck,
Jeopardy
in theitaCourt
Room:
discovery,
any required
continuance
will be
onasRule 600S.J.
discharge,
is a that
potent
weapon
that
should
changes in posture by the interviewer or continued to the Commonwealth
A
Scientific it
Analysis
ofyou
Children's
Testimony
(1995);
S.J.
intend to seriously never
the
prosecution.
If you
have to follow-up
with the
Request
discovery
earlya and
questioning
when
childinis writing.
showingThat
signsway,
of distress. litigateCeci
&
R.D.
Friedman,
The
Suggestibility
of
Children:
be
thisoverlooked.
issue can get you results. It is only one
Commonwealth
about
discovery
they
have failed to
if theChildren's
Commonwealth
fails
provide
requested
distress can
betoobvious,
such
as crying
Scientific Research and Legal Implications, 86 cornell
weapon
in your arsenal, but because a win means
sure
memorialize
such
in
or hand
as subtle
as be
delays
intoresponding,
later
also
law review 33-107, (2000).
discovery,
anyover,
required
continuance
willthe
be
on requests
NOTES:
discharge,
it is a potent
weapon
that should
never
5
potentially
of email.
ato
less
automatic
response.
C.
Newlin,
L.C. Steele,
A. Chamerlin,
J. Anderson,
J.
a writingindicative
such
an
the prosecution.
If youashave
follow-up
with
the
1
Commonwealth
v.
Mills,
162
A.3d
323
(Pa.
2017).
be overlooked.
Kenniston,
A.
Russell,
H.
Stewart
and
V.
Vaugh-Eden.
2
Commonwealth
about discovery
they
have
failed to
U.S. ConSt. Amend. VI; PA. CONST. art. 1, § 9.
* In
If conclusion,
a continuance
required
due
to the
childissexual
abuse
investigations
and
Children
Forensic Interview: Best Practice, Office of
3
Commonwealth v. DeBlase, 665 A.2d 427, 431 (Pa. 1995).
hand over,
be
sure
to
memorialize
such
requests
in
Commonwealth's
failure
of diligence,
be sure to NOTES:
court
cases are rife with
possibilities
for witnesses
Juvenile
Justice
and
Delinquency
Juvenile
4
Barker v. Wingo,
407
U.S. 514, 530Prevention's
(1972) (articulating
the
a writing
as
an
email.
to put
besuch
influenced
by
authorities,
interviewers,
family
Justice
Bulletin,
September
(2015).
that on the record at the time the continuance1 Commonwealth
v. Mills,
162 Commonwealth
A.3d 323 (Pa. 2017).
constitutional
test);
v. Preston, 904 A.2d
6
members
and other
significant
in the
M.1,.Bruck
S.J.Ct.
Ceci,
The
Suggestibility
A
VI;
PA.
CONST.
art.
1, Barker
§ 9.
10mend
(Pa..and
Super.
2006)
(the
test is of
an Children's
entirely
is requested.
Even
if the
notlife
ruleofin 2 U.S. ConSt
If a continuance
is required
duejudge
toadults
thedoes
3
the child. Despite structured interviews and video
Memory,
50
a
nnual
r
eview
o
f
p
sychology
,
419-439
Commonwealth
v.
DeBlase,
665
A.2d
427,
431
(Pa.
1995).
separate
analysis
from
Rule
600
and
therefore
needs
to be
your favor,failure
you have
at least preserved
the issue for
Commonwealth's
of diligence,
be sure to
recorded sessions,
investigative
interviewers
can veer 4 Barker
(1999).
v.raised
Wingo,
407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972) (articulating the
separately).
7 5 Pa.R.Crim.P.
put that
on appropriate
the record at
theoftime
the continuance
constitutional
test); Commonwealth
v.Age
Preston,
904 A.2din
Rule
600(2)(a);
see
alsoDifferences
Commonwealth
offappeal.
the
path
allowing
the child to
G.S. Goodman
and
R. Reed,
1, 10 Eyewitness
(Pa.v.Super.
Ct.
2006)
(the
Barker
test
ishan
entirely
Kearse,
890
A.2d
388,
395
Super.
Ct.B2005)
(no
is requested.
Even
if
the
judge
does
not
rule
in
tell
their
experience
without
influence
or
direction.
Testimony,
10
l
aw(Pa.
a
nD
uman
ehavior
* All motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600 must beseparate"prejudice"
analysis
from
Rule
600
and
therefore
needs
to
be
need
be
shown
to
obtain
Rule
600
dismissal).
Attorneys
representing
defendants
accused
of
child
317-332
(1986).
your favor,
you
at least
themotion
issue for
31
Filepreserved
your client's
after theraised8 separately).
made
in have
writing.
600 has
a more
definitive
period,
theet
sole
sexual abuse would benefit from scrutiny of the
SeeWhile
Ceci Rule
& Bruck
(1995);
Newlin
et al.time
(2015);
Hritz
appeal.
Rule
600(2)(a);
Commonwealth
focus
of Rule
600 issee
on also
the action
of the Commonwealth.
365-day period has elapsed. If the trial judge rules5 Pa.R.Crim.P.
PANTONE

2955C

7406C

CMYK

90/78/39/30

9/22/91/0

RGB

PANTONE

22/58/92

234/194/56

HEXIDECIMAL

2955C

7406C

CMYK

#153A5B

90/78/39/30

#EAC137

9/22/91/0

RGB

22/58/92

234/194/56

HEXIDECIMAL

#153A5B

#EAC137

investigative process with the assistance of a qualified
al. (2015); K.C. Faller, L. Cordisco-Steele and D. Nelsonv. Kearse,Thus,
890 A.2d
388, 395 (Pa.
Super. Ct.
2005)be
(noforwarded
a constitutional
argument
should
against
you
and
subsequently
the
Commonwealth
expert.
Individual
cases
are
unique
and
the
sources
Gardell, Allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Child: What
All motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600 must be
"prejudice"
need
be shown
to obtain
Rule 600and
dismissal).
when
a delay
prejudices
a defendant
that delay was
31 indicating
information
taint period
can
be quite
varied.
Do
When
aa Single
Forensic
Interview
Enough,
another
substantial
ofafter
delay,
file
File your
client's
motion
the
madeofincauses
writing.
WhiletoRule
600
hascaused
more
time
period,Isn't
the sole
primarily
bydefinitive
the
courts.
Careful
analysis
of
the
timeline
and
the
varied
sources
19
J
ournal
o
f
c
hilD
s
exual
a
Buse
572-589
(2010).
new Rule
motion
based
this additional
focus of6 Pa.R.Crim.P.
Rule 600 is on
the600(D)(1).
action of the Commonwealth.
Rule
365-daya period
has600
elapsed.
If the
trialonjudge
rules
of time
information
that
may
have
influenced
the
child
Thus,
a
constitutional
argument
should be forwarded
litigate it priorthe
to Commonwealth
any trial to preserve an
against you and subsequently
can be found in investigative interviews, hearing
when a delay
prejudices
a
defendant
that delay
was the
Click here to view and
and/or
print
objectionsubstantial
to the additionalof
time
period.
causes
another
delay,
file
testimony,
and personalperiod
communications,
if available. primarily caused by the courts.
full
section for this article.
6
a new
Rule
600
motion
based on
this
additional
Pa.R.Crim.P.
Rulenotes
600(D)(1).
and
school
records
ofafter
the children
can provide
*Medical
At the
Rule
600 hearing,
the defense
has
developmental
anomalies
time important
and
litigate
it prior
toon
any
trial that
to preserve
an
made
a information
prima
facie
showing
the defendant
or
disabilities
that
could
interfere
with
the
child's
Click here to view and/or print the
objection
to
the
additional
time
period.
has not been
brought toNot
trialonly
within
365adays,
capabilities
for recollection.
should
careful
full notes section for this article.
the Commonwealth
bears
At the
Rule
600
hearing,
after
thethe
defense
hasof proving
analysis
of the
video recordings
of burden
all interviews
focus
Dr. Haworth is a Pennsylvania
they
have
acted
the
behavior
ofnonetheless
the interviewer,
butwith
alsodiligence.
the nature
madeonathat
prima
facie
showing
that the
defendant
and New Jersey licensed
of This
the
child's
responses
and
their
developmental
means
thattoafter
the
defense
has made such
psychologist
and an is
expert
has not
been
brought
trial
within
365 days,
Katherine Ernst
an
appropriateness.
A close review
of any
other
witness
specializing
in
Forensic
a
prima
facie
showing,
it
is
the
Commonwealth
the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving
appellate
attorney
with
the
interactions with the child, including examination of
and
Clinical
Psychology.
He
who
should
be required
towith
put on
its evidence
that child
they
have
nonetheless
acted
diligence.
Montgomery
County
victims and other witnesses in the preliminary
has
been admitted
as anPublic
and the
should
only
argue
This means
that
after
the
defense
has
made
suchthe
hearing,
candefense
provide
information
on
theafter
child
victim
Katherine
Ernst
is
an
Defender's
Office.
She
expert
witness
in multiple
Commonwealth
done
so. Essentially,
a Ruleor600
a prima
facie
showing,
ithas
is the
Commonwealth
being
repeatedly
asked
questions,
being pressured,
Pennsylvania
courts
and all
appellate
attorney
withfrom
the
handles
appeals
hearing
should
proceed
in form
almost
identically
critical
information
about
bias.
The final
item
who other
should
be required
to put
on
its
evidence
federal
courts. He
ishomicide,
a prior
Montgomery
County
Public
units, juvenile
to
would
be
any
use
of
anatomical
dolls
prior
to
the
a suppression
If the
judge
member of the Pennsylvania
and thetodefense
should hearing.
only argue
after
the asks you
Defender's
Office.
and she
alsoShe
formulates
child's
disclosure
contribute
to contamination.
Sexual Offender Assessment Board and was at the
to argue
priorcould
to the
Commonwealth's
evidence,

About the Author

About the Author

About the Author

Commonwealth has done so. Essentially, a Rule 600
handlesfor
appeals
from
all pre-trial
legal
for
Joseph J. Peters institute
15 strategy
years.
In addition
to
make
it clear
that you
could
not identically
possibly argue
hearing
should
proceed
form
almost
Child
sexual
abuse in
is an
awful
crime,
and injures
units,
juvenile
to
homicide,
and
trial
units.
Katherine
graduated
Magna
Cum
his
expertise
in
matters
related
to
all
aspects
of
sexual
on behalf
of your client
know
what the
to a suppression
hearing.
If based
the until
judge
asks
you
about
1 in 4 Americans,
on you
reports
of adults.
violence,
including
Internet
related
sexual
crimes,
in
and she
formulates
Laude from Loyola
Lawalso
School,
New Orleans
Commonwealth's
evidence
ofdiminish
diligence
is.horror
to argue
prior to
Commonwealth's
evidence,
This
article
in the
no way
is meant to
the
his private practice he has provided forensic evaluation
legal
for She
pre-trial
in 2007 and was
on strategy
law review.
practiced
child
abuse
or exploitation,
but rather
to ensure
make*ofitIf
clear
that you
could not
possibly
argue
and expert consultation in a wide range of matters
the Commonwealth
appears
at the
Rule 600
and
trial
units.
Katherine
graduated
Magna
Cum
at
Kaufman,
Coren
&
Ress
in
Philadelphia
out
a
system
of
checks
and
balances
are
in
place
for
all
across the forensic psychological spectrum of
services.
on behalf
of your
client
you know
the that
hearing
and
doesuntil
not and
present
anywhat
evidence
parties
in the
allegations
to support
fact finding
School,
New
Orleans
ofHaworth
lawLoyola
school,
and
thereafter
workUniversity
in the
is aLaw
faculty
member
atdid
Rutgers
Commonwealth's
evidence
of diligence
is. they did not LaudeDr.from
it meaningful
acted with
diligence-for
instance,
in a
way
without undue
influence,
and to in 2007
inintersection
the
Department
Psychology,
where
he
has
taught
and was onof
law
review. She
practiced
horseracing
law
and §1983
for a
process.
bring due
in the
officer
to testify
the 600
attempts made
If thesupport
Commonwealth
appears
at thetoRule
for
the
past
20
years.
He
also
served
on
the
faculty
at Kaufman,
Coren
& Ress
in Philadelphia
outpassion
number
of years
before
following her
find
andnot
apprehend
the evidence
defendant-argue
that
of University of Pennsylvania Graduate School, and
hearingtoand
does
present any
that
NOTES:
of law
school,
and thereafter
did work
in the presents at
for
indigent
criminal
defense.
Medical
College
of Pennsylvania.
He regularly
not met their
burden
because
the burden
it actedthey
withhave
diligence-for
instance,
they
did not
intersection
horseracing
lawareas
and of
§1983
for and
a clinical
nationalof
conferences
in the
forensic
proof
includes
the burden
of for
production
and
bring1 in
the
officer
toKetchum,
testify
toWitness
the attempts
E.of
Loftus
and
K.
themade
Defense,
psychology.
number
of
years
before
following
her
passion
Share this article
arguments
of counsel
are
not evidence.that
MacMillan
Publishing,
(2005).
to find
and apprehend
theNY.
defendant-argue
for indigent criminal defense.
2
G.
Simcock
and
H.
Hayne.
Age
Related
Changes
in
they have not met their burden because the burden
Verbal
and Non-Verbal
Memory
During Childhood,
39
of proof
includes
the burden
of production
and
Vol. 4, Issue 4 l For The Defense
9
Developmental psychology 805-814 (2003).
Share this article
arguments
of counsel are not evidence.
3
PANTONE

2955C

7406C

CMYK

90/78/39/30

9/22/91/0

RGB

22/58/92

234/194/56

HEXIDECIMAL

#153A5B

#EAC137

A.C. Hritz, C.E. Royer, R.K. Helm, K.A. Burd, K. Ojeda
and S.J. Ceci, Children's Suggestibility Research: Things
to Know Before Interviewing a Child, 25 anuario De

Vol. 4, Issue 4

l

For The Defense

9

Vol. 5, Issue 1 l For The Defense

25


https://nxt-staging-books.s3.amazonaws.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol5_issue1_2020/src/docs/Taint.Haworth.Endnotes.Final.1.29.2020.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