Court Opinion

ID: 9761827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:55:59.82697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:26.728370
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice, dissenting.
It now appears that application of Rule 1100 occupies the realm of mystery as well as that of fact. Substantiation of propositions by facts on the record, a benchmark of our system of judicial resolution of cases, has been cast aside. In its place is set up an ethereal reference point unable to be challenged because unable to be grasped.
Nearly four years ago to the day, in Commonwealth v. Crowley, 502 Pa. 393, 408, 466 A.2d 1009, 1017 (1983) (Zappala, J., dissenting), I stated that Rule 1100
was promulgated to ensure a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial and to avoid a case by case review to determine whether that right has been violated. It is totally illogical to have a rule designed to protect both an individual defendant and society at large and now to apply that rule in such an elastic fashion so as to accommodate the practices of various judicial districts.
Adhering to the view there expressed, I dissent, and would affirm the order of the Superior Court.