Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Bright

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 6, 1982No. 742Published

1Dissent

CERCONE, President Judge,

dissenting:

I heartily dissent.

Rule 1100(c) provides that applications by the Commonwealth to extend the time for trial may be granted “only if trial cannot be commenced within the prescribed period despite due diligence, by the Commonwealth.” Since Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 469 Pa. 214, 364 A.2d 1345 (1976), Rule 1100(c) has been interpreted to require a record showing of due diligence. The Supreme Court stated there:

Henceforth, the trial court may grant an extension under Rule 1100(c) only upon a record showing: (1) the “due diligence” of the prosecution, and (2)…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MayfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Commonwealth v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Commonwealth v. EhredtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Commonwealth v. RaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  5. Commonwealth v. AntonuccioSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API