For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 2 - 16

gyqy
Discuss this waiver with your client with the same
seriousness you would discuss the waiver of any
constitutional right.30
that such a view can have on your emotional well-being.
Examine the pros and cons of holding such a view and the
advantages of restructuring your definition of proficiency.
* Request discovery early and in writing. That way,
if the Commonwealth fails to provide requested
discovery, any required continuance will be on
the prosecution. If you have to follow-up with the
Commonwealth about discovery they have failed to
hand over, be sure to memorialize such requests in
a writing such as an email.
* If a continuance is required due to the
Commonwealth's failure of diligence, be sure to
put that on the record at the time the continuance
is requested. Even if the judge does not rule in
your favor, you have at least preserved the issue for
appeal.
Conclusion
365-day period has elapsed. If the trial judge rules
against you and subsequently the Commonwealth
causes another substantial period of delay, file
a new Rule 600 motion based on this additional
time and litigate it prior to any trial to preserve an
objection to the additional time period.
Next accept praise. Often, those experiencing the
impostor phenomenon tend to discount or pay no heed
to positive feedback. In your journal, keep a section for
recording positive comments and praise, however minor it
seems. Then, along with your own notations of successes,
read these comments. Doing this repeatedly will help you
develop a positive self-perception and work to combat
the negative impact of the impostor phenomenon.
If you identified affirmatively with the questions at the
beginning of this article, we hope that we have been able
to help you better understand the Imposter Phenomenon
and offer practical tools to counter its effect and develop
a more positively balanced self-concept.
2955C
90/78/39/30
RGB
* All motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600 must be
made in writing.31
22/58/92
File your client's motion after the
#153A5B
causes another substantial period of delay, file
a new Rule 600 motion based on this additional
time and litigate it prior to any trial to preserve an
objection to the additional time period.
when a delay prejudices a defendant and that delay was
primarily caused by the courts.
6 Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 600(D)(1).
* At the Rule 600 hearing, after the defense has
made a prima facie showing that the defendant
has not been brought to trial within 365 days,
the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving
that they have nonetheless acted with diligence.
This means that after the defense has made such
a prima facie showing, it is the Commonwealth
who should be required to put on its evidence
and the defense should only argue after the
Commonwealth has done so. Essentially, a Rule 600
hearing should proceed in form almost identically
to a suppression hearing. If the judge asks you
to argue prior to the Commonwealth's evidence,
make it clear that you could not possibly argue
on behalf of your client until you know what the
Commonwealth's evidence of diligence is.
4
PANTONE
7406C
CMYK
9/22/91/0
5
234/194/56
HEXIDECIMAL
#EAC137
Using the strategy above, people both in and
outside my office have had tremendous success with
Rule 600 motions. Oftentimes, just making it plain
to the Commonwealth that you intend to seriously
litigate this issue can get you results. It is only one
weapon in your arsenal, but because a win means
discharge, it is a potent weapon that should never
be overlooked.
NOTES:
1
syndrome-quotes-celebrities/307473.
2
PANTONE
2955C
CMYK
7406C
90/78/39/30
9/22/91/0
NOTES:
1
RGB
(2011).
4
2 U.S. ConSt. Amend. VI; PA. CONST. art. 1, § 9.
#153A5B
#EAC137
Commonwealth v. Mills, 162 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2017).
5 Id at 241.
Clance, supra note 2, at 241.
HEXIDECIMAL
22/58/92
234/194/56
Lauren Geall, 12 Successful Women on Imposter Syndrome and
Self-Doubt, https://www.stylist.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/imposterSee
John Kolligan and Robert J. Sternberg, Perceived Fraudulence
in Young Adults: Is there an 'Imposter Syndrome'?, 56 J. Of PerSOnality
aSSeSSment 308 (1991).
3
Jaruwan Sakulku, The Impostor Phenomenon, 6 the J. Of Behav. SCi. 75
6 Rebecca L. Badawy, Brooke A. Gazdag, Jeffrey R. Bentley, and Robyn L.
3 Commonwealth v. DeBlase, 665 A.2d 427, 431 (Pa. 1995).
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972) (articulating the
constitutional test); Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d
1, 10 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (the Barker test is an entirely
separate analysis from Rule 600 and therefore needs to be
raised separately).
About the Authors
* If the Commonwealth appears at the Rule 600
hearing and does not present any evidence that
it acted with diligence-for instance, they did not
bring in the officer to testify to the attempts made
to find and apprehend the defendant-argue that
they have not met their burden because the burden
of proof includes the burden of production and
arguments of counsel are not evidence.
* At the Rule 600 hearing, after the defense has
made a prima facie showing that the defendant
has not been brought to trial within 365 days,
the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving
that they have nonetheless acted with diligence.
This means that after the defense has made such
a prima facie showing, it is the Commonwealth
who should be required to put on its evidence
and the defense should only argue after the
Commonwealth has done so. Essentially, a Rule 600
hearing should proceed in form almost identically
to a suppression hearing. If the judge asks you
to argue prior to the Commonwealth's evidence,
make it clear that you could not possibly argue
on behalf of your client until you know what the
Commonwealth's evidence of diligence is.
JIM SWETZ
PACDL Past President
BRIAN JORDAN
PACDL Board of Directors
GARY J. SAYLOR, II
GERALD BRUNELL
PROUD PACDL SUPPORTERS
* If the Commonwealth appears at the Rule 600
hearing and does not present any evidence that
it acted with diligence-for instance, they did not
bring in the officer to testify to the attempts made
to find and apprehend the defendant-argue that
they have not met their burden because the burden
of proof includes the burden of production and
arguments of counsel are not evidence.
711 Sarah Street · Stroudsburg, PA 18360
(570) 421-5568 · www.csmjlawyer.com
16 For The Defense l Vol. 7, Issue 2
THE RIGHT LAWYER CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Monroe County Criminal Defense
Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 600(2)(a); see also Commonwealth
v. Kearse, 890 A.2d 388, 395 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (no
" prejudice " need be shown to obtain Rule 600 dismissal).
While Rule 600 has a more definitive time period, the sole
focus of Rule 600 is on the action of the Commonwealth.
Thus, a constitutional argument should be forwarded
when a delay prejudices a defendant and that delay was
primarily caused by the courts.
6 Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 600(D)(1).
About the Author
Click here to view and/or print the
full notes section for this article.
Share this article
Brouer. Are All Impostors Created Equal? Exploring Gender Differences
in the Impostor Phenomenon-Performance Link, 131 PerSOnality and
individual differenCeS 156 (2018).
Katherine Ernst is an
appellate attorney with the
Montgomery County Public
Defender's Office. She
handles appeals from all
units, juvenile to homicide,
and she also formulates
legal strategy for pre-trial
and trial units. Katherine graduated Magna Cum
Laude from Loyola Law School, New Orleans
in 2007 and was on law review. She practiced
at Kaufman, Coren & Ress in Philadelphia out
of law school, and thereafter did work in the
intersection of horseracing law and §1983 for a
number of years before following her passion
for indigent criminal defense.
Dr. Michael T. Wiltsey is a
licensed psychologist engaged
in forensic and clinical practice.
He is affiliated with the
practice of Elliot Atkins Ed.D.
& Psychological Associates. He
is also the Director of Forensic
Psychology at the Center for
Forensic Psychology at the
Center for Emotional Health
in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. He holds a Ph.D. in Clinical
Psychology with a concentration in Forensic Psychology
from Drexel University and an M.A. in Forensic
Psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Dr.
Wiltsey has conducted forensic evaluations in numerous
legal matters and has provided psychological services in
various sites, including corrections, psychiatric emergency
screening, a state psychiatric and forensic hospital, and
outpatient settings. He is also a faculty member with the
Professional Security Studies Department at New Jersey
City University.
Vol. 4, Issue 4 l For The Defense 9
Katherine Ernst is an
appellate attorney with the
Montgomery County Public
Defender's Office. She
handles appeals from all
units, juvenile to homicide,
and she also formulates
legal strategy for pre-trial
and trial units. Katherine graduated Magna Cum
Laude from Loyola Law School, New Orleans
in 2007 and was on law review. She practiced
at Kaufman, Coren & Ress in Philadelphia out
of law school, and thereafter did work in the
intersection of horseracing law and §1983 for a
number of years before following her passion
for indigent criminal defense.
Share this article
Vol. 4, Issue 4 l For The Defense 9
Dr. Elizabeth Foster is an
associate professor of clinical
psychology at Widener
University in the Institute for
Graduate Clinical Psychology
(IGCP) program. Dr. Foster also
works, seeing patients, as a
licensed clinical psychologist in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Her research primarily centers around psychology and
the law.
About the Author
Click here to view and/or print the
full notes section for this article.
https://nxt-staging-books.s3.amazonaws.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol7_issue2_2022/src/PACDL_June_2022_notes_Imposter_Syndrome.pdf https://www.stylist.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/imposter-syndrome-quotes-celebrities/307473 https://www.stylist.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/imposter-syndrome-quotes-celebrities/307473 http://www.csmjlawyer.com
For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 2
