State v. Hazelton

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the delay between Hazelton’s arraignment in the Court of Common Pleas and the return of the Rule 9 summons and warrant in the Superior Court nearly four months later was. both unnecessary and attributable to the prosecution’s, conduct. As such, Hazel-ton properly invoked Rule 48(b),and, under the circumstances, the trial judge acted within the bounds of his discretion in dismissing the indictment.

Here, the delay between the time Hazel-ton appeared in the > Court of Common Pleas ■ on May 18 to enter his not-guilty plea and demand a -.jury trial, and the…