A criminal defendant who is incarcerated in another jurisdiction is unavailable within the meaning of Rule 600 if the Commonwealth demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it exercised due diligence in attempting to procure the defendant’s return for trial, then the time period for which the defendant can’t be found does not run against the government. school discipline hearings “Due-diligence is a fact-specific concept that is determined on a case-by-case basis.” It is generally held that Rule 600 is tolled where the Commonwealth shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it has acted with due diligence in seeking extradition to bring the defendant to trial…. The matters of availability and due diligence must be judged by what was done by the authorities rather than by what was not done.” Under Rule 600(c)(1), time between the filing of the complaint and a defendant’s arrest may be excluded from calculation of the trial commencement period, provided the defendant could not be apprehended because his whereabouts were unknown and could not be determined by due diligence. In addition, the Comment to Rule 600 states a defendant is deemed unavailable during the time a responding jurisdiction delays or refuses to grant extradition.

Rule 600 is basically a rule discussing the speedy trial right that all criminal defendants possess. Pennsylvania Courts has stated that mere incarceration in another state does not make a defendant unavailable within the meaning of Rule 600. In Pennsylvania, Date rape charges the rule is that incarceration in another state does not automatically mean that a defendant is unavailable in the Rule 600 speedy trial calculus. “A defendant is only unavailable if the delay in returning him to Pennsylvania is due to the other state causing the delay; the prosecution, however, must exercise due diligence in attempting to bring the defendant back for trial.” Make sure to hire an experienced Chester County Criminal Lawyer if you believe you have a rule 600 issue