Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Lear, J.

Summary

Justice Wecht dissents, arguing that the majority’s recharacterization of pandemic‑related delays under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 improperly circumvents the due‑diligence requirement established in Harth. He maintains that any delay must first be examined for Commonwealth diligence, even when labeled a “court postponement,” and would affirm the Superior Court’s order requiring such proof. The dissent cautions that the majority’s approach would let prosecutors evade their lifelong duty of diligence.