State v. D.F.W.

The New Jersey Appellate Division dealt with two speedy trial issues under the Criminal Justice Reform Act. First, the Court reviewed the application of the 180-day extension of time to bring a defendant to trial where the State secures a superseding indictment. Second, the Court looked at the “two-year clock” that compels the State to … Read more

Commonwealth v. Harth

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a critical ruling for criminal defendants when it held “that a trial court may invoke ‘judicial delay’ to deny a defendant’s Rule 600 motion to dismiss only after the Commonwealth has demonstrated that it complied with the due diligence requirements of Rule 600 at all relevant periods throughout the life … Read more

United States v. Shulick

In United States v. Shulik, the defendant, whose co-conspirator was Chaka Fattah, Jr., appealed his convictions of conspiracy, embezzlement, and fraud charges. He alleged several errors, ranging from speedy trial right violations to errors in evidentiary rulings, faulty jury instructions, and sentencing miscalculations. The Third Circuit reviewed each claim, concluded there was no reversible error … Read more

Commonwealth v. Risoldi

In Commonwealth v. Risoldi, the Superior Court vacated the defendant’s conviction for theft by deception, ruling the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. The Court also affirmed the denial of a 600A motion and gave a useful, detailed analysis. 

Commonwealth v. Talley

In Commonwealth v. Tallley, the Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for stalking and related crimes. On appeal, the defendant unsuccessfully argued that the trial court erred when: 1. it denied his 600B motion; 2. it sentenced him on two different sections of PA’s stalking statute; and 3. it admitted screenshots of text messages from … Read more

State v. Williams

In State v. Williams, the State appealed the trial court’s order, which granted the defendant’s pretrial release. The trial court found that the State’s repeated failure to comply with the trial court’s discovery orders and the State’s delay in producing material discovery unreasonably caused the trial to be delayed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no … Read more