In 2026, Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure requires Philadelphia prosecutors to bring cases to trial within 365 days of the date a complaint is filed in most cases. Defense attorney Brian Fishman explains the differences between “excludable time” and “prosecutorial delay,” and talks about what it takes to secure a dismissal under Rule 600 in Philadelphia’s backlogged court system.

As a defendant in the Pennsylvania criminal justice system, you have the right to a fair and speedy trial. While “speedy” is subject to interpretation, Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure establishes specific timing-related requirements for criminal trials.

These include a requirement to take cases to trial within 365 days in most cases. Additionally, Rule 600 provides that dismissal may be warranted if a case has not timely been taken to trial:

“When a defendant has not been brought to trial within the time periods set forth in [Rule 600], at any time before trial, the defendant’s attorney, or the defendant if unrepresented, may file a written motion requesting that the charges be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that this rule has been violated.”

As a result, Rule 600 can play a key role in some criminal cases—and particularly those pending in Philadelphia’s backlogged court system. However, exceptions apply, so defendants who are seeking to rely on Rule 600 to seek dismissal of their criminal charges should consult with an experienced defense attorney before doing so.

Calculating the Mechanical Run Date

Determining if Rule 600 has been violated in a criminal case in Philadelphia starts with calculating the “mechanical run date.” This is the date on which the 365-day time window for taking a case to trial starts to run.

While the mechanical run date is “the date on which the complaint is filed” in most cases, there are exceptions. These exceptions include:

  • Cases Transferred from Juvenile Court: “Trial in a court case that is transferred from the juvenile court to the trial or criminal division shall commence within 365 days from the date on which the transfer order is filed.”
  • Cases Involving Termination of ARD: “When a trial court has ordered that a defendant’s participation in the ARD program be terminated . . . trial shall commence within 365 days from the date on which the termination order is filed.”
  • Cases Involving Grant of a New Trial: “When a trial court has granted a new trial and no appeal has been perfected, the new trial shall commence within 365 days from the date on which the trial court’s order is filed.”
  • Cases Involving Remand from an Appellate Court: “When an appellate court has remanded a case to the trial court, the new trial shall commence within 365 days from the date of the written notice from the appellate court to the parties that the record was remanded.”

If you are not sure of the mechanical run date for your trial, an experienced defense attorney can determine when the 365-day time window started to run. If the 365-day time window for your trial has expired, your attorney can also determine if you have grounds to file a motion to dismiss. Among other things, this will involve determining whether your case involves any “excludable time.”

Excludable vs. Non-Excludable Time

The 365-day time window under Rule 600 is not set in stone. To the contrary, there are various circumstances in which the deadline for taking a criminal case to trial can be extended. These include circumstances that involve “excludable time.” Rule 600 provides:

“For purposes of [Rule 600], periods of delay at any stage of the proceedings caused by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has failed to exercise due diligence shall be included in the computation of the time within which trial must commence. Any other periods of delay shall be excluded from the computation.”

Thus, excludable time includes any delays due to the defendant’s action or inaction, as well as any other delays that are beyond the court’s or the prosecution’s control. In contrast, non-excludable time includes delays caused by the prosecution, including lack of prosecutorial diligence.

Proving a Lack of Prosecutorial Diligence

Lack of prosecutorial diligence is among the most common grounds for seeking dismissal of criminal charges under Rule 600. This is based on the “due diligence” standard mentioned in the quote above.

The Pennsylvania courts have held that in the context of a motion to dismiss under Rule 600, “[d]ue diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; [and,] does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Even so, it may be possible to prove a lack of prosecutorial diligence in various circumstances; and, if the prosecution raises due diligence as a defense to a defendant’s motion to dismiss, exposing any relevant delays that were within the prosecution’s control will be key to the motion’s success.

Filing a Motion to Dismiss in Philadelphia

If you believe that you may have grounds to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, what should you do?

While defendants have the right to represent themselves in court, there are several important reasons to hire an experienced defense attorney to represent you. If you are entitled to dismissal under Rule 600, filing a successful motion could be the key to protecting your future. As discussed above, an experienced defense attorney will be able to determine if you are eligible to file; and, if you are, your attorney will be able to file a motion that complies with all relevant rules and that anticipates any potential defenses based on the prosecution’s claimed “due diligence.”

Request a Free Consultation with Philadelphia Defense Lawyer Brian Fishman

Brian Fishman is a Philadelphia defense lawyer and former prosecutor who has extensive experience representing clients in all types of criminal cases. If you have questions about your legal rights, you can call 267-758-2228 or contact us online to arrange a free consultation.