*1 Moore, Petitioner, v. Jamieson. *2 J.,C. 1973. Before January
Argued Jones, Nix and Mander- Roberts, Pomeroy, Eagen, O’Brien, ino, JJ. for Crippins, petitioner.
Isaiah W. Assistant District for H. Belsky, Attorney, Mwtin respondents. F.
Lynwood Blount, intervenor, Pennsylvania Conference of Trial State Judges.
David him Peter & Rudovsky, Hearn, Kmrys Hamilton Rudovsky, & Pepper, Scheetz, amicus American curiae, Civil Liberties Union.
Opinion Mb. Justice 1973: March Nix, Cecil B. petitioner, Moore, Esq., member the bar of whose Pennsylvania chiefly consists practice criminal representing of Phila City delphia, seeks writ prohibition the enforce against ment of Rule *301 Court of Philadelphia Com mon Pleas. That rule1 an prohibits attorney who repre ten or sents defendants whose indict ments are over from twelve months old entering *3 in appearance additional criminal any cases.2 De- On 1 purposes, For editorial we will refer *301 to as a rule. In so doing purport we do not decide the issue of whether 11. Pa. Crim. 1(c) prior April required 26, 1972, P. as it existed the submis- of sion *301 to the Criminal Procedural Buies Committee of this Court. lodged *301, Buie itas was with the Criminal Procedural Buies July 5, pursuant present on Committee of this Court to the 1(c) provides: B. Pa. Crim. P. representng against ten or “Counsel more defendants whom outstanding period have been in indictments excess of twelve months, pre-trial whether or not all have been motions determined regardless entry appearance, of the date of counsel’s shall appearance any rep- entitled to enter an or other not be in manner or additional defendant criminal resent defendants court County represented by until time as all in this such outstanding counsel, have whose indictments been more than such months, charges tried or the dismissed. It have been shall twelve Administrator, duty after of the Court close be the month, previous of Court of each term furnish all attorneys County Judges a list of who on first of this with represent day ten or more defendants whose indict- of that month outstanding more than twelve months and the have been ments given Priority shall be status all such defendants. of said names cember we an order of granted 13, 1972, supersedeas of this pending disposition petition. Rule *301
By way procedural was history, orig in Administrative Memorandum inally promulgated3 No. Vin 1969, by Honorable 69-60, August 13, cent A. then of the Judge President Court of Carroll, Common Pleas, County, to the Philadelphia pursuant P. Act June L. amend 1982, §2, as 21, 1937, 17 P.S. and Pa. R. Crim. P. In an affi- ed, 1(b)5. §624 eligible again which must eases be tried before counsel is to enter appearance Any dispute for defendants in other criminal cases. concerning accuracy by prepared of the list the Court Adminis- by Judge of trator shall be determined forthwith the President upon application by Upon good Common Pleas Court counsel. cause shown, Judge may compliance the President relieve counsel from foregoing rule. with the partners one or more in the “Where counsel has or associates by partners law, appearance practice of entries of said or associates determining represented not considered the defendants shall be prescribed In exceed the time. no whose indictments counsel permitted by appearances counsel event shall substitution compliance avoid this rule. substitution where such fugitives are or whose eases are deferred status who Defendants good reason, ineompetency other and sufficient or reason of determining number of defendants whose be included shall not outstanding period in for a excess of twelve been have indictments months.” present original rule differed from the version of the provisions paragraph, only which were as its first against representing fifteen or more defendants “Counsel follows: outstanding period in for a excess of been indictments have whom pretrial months, motions have been deter- or not all whether twelve entry appearance, regardless counsel’s of the date mined and *4 any appearance or in other manner to enter be entitled not shall represent or defendants defendant additional County the number of untried until time as such in this court by represented indictments have been counsel whose such to a outstanding shall be reduced twelve months than .” . . fifteen. less than number provides: statute That by courts lower rules “Local Esq., May on Blake, executed Edward J.
davit serving capacity who of Court Admin- was then Philadelphia istrator of the Court Common Pleas, petitioner County, alleged “had that as of that date, (56) appearance fifty-six crim- entered on his behalf inal defendants who as of date indicted this have been year’s but for more than one . . .” The untried time. alleged Mr. affidavit further that as that date, eighty- appearance Moore had entered an behalf (87) special seven other criminal defendants and that a “Priority Program” expedite had been instituted disposition petitioner’s May cases. On 15th of the year, by same an order was entered the then President Judge Philadelphia County prohibiting respondent, entering any appearances under the from further rule, county in that “until such time as number of un- represented tried defendants Mr. in- Moore, whose outstanding dictments have been for more than twelve (12) shall be reduced to a number months, less than fif- (15).” August adjudged teen On Petitioner 9,1971, was compliance again inbe with Rule *301 and he was permitted appearances to enter in criminal Philadelphia County. on November
Thereafter, 9, 1971, District Attor- ney Philadelphia County petition filed a in the Court Philadelphia County of Common Pleas of requesting against petitioner. that Rule *301 be reinvoked After pleas, “Each of the courts common each of the courts of county quarter sessions, Allegheny County, court of mu- nicipal Philadelphia, court of and other courts established Assembly, may adopt General additional local rules for the con- business, its shall not duct of which be inconsistent with or in general prescribed by Supreme conflict with said rules Court Pennsylvania.” provides: “(b) exercising That rule Each of the courts crim- may adopt jurisdiction procedure local rules of inal which shall not or in inconsistent with conflict these rules.” *5 304 by petitioner
responsive pleading an ex was filed hearing a the Court Administrator, held before tensive by Judge February report on filed 7, was Blake,6 pertinent portion forth is set below. which computer appropriate of the “After careful review testimony printouts administra- of the and the notes hearing, conclude: tive we February 1972, as of Moore, 2,
“1. That Cecil B. appearances that in 99 criminal cases, has entered year 32 of cases more than one as that date such are old. Attorney inability of the
“2. That the District proceed on dates in these cases, scheduled trial some contributing delay, not a factor to substantial while cause. attor- '"Rule bar to an
“3. That 301 is absolute ney entering appearances, number additional when the year represents he of cases more than one which old, exceeds and takes into consideration ten, defendants, inability proceed the fact the Commonwealth’s contributing be factor. trial dates scheduled inability dispose Mr. of his “4. That Moore’s year aggravated one be now more than old will by more cases will become the fact that additional year 1972. 30, than one old June “Accordingly it is recommended that: against respondent, “(a) 301 be reinvoked ’"Rule B. Moore; Cecil procedures
“(b) Administrative to in- structured year now more than one old, trial of those cases sure numbering which and those cases will become hearing report, time of the and the date Between appointed the Court of Pleas Phila- Common Blake Mr. was capacity County. delphia continued to serve in the of Court He Administrator.
than one year to June old, numbering 47, prior 1972.” (Footnote omitted.)7
On February 9, 1972 an order was entered Presi dent Judge reinvoking provisions Jamieson *6 rule he against and that shall not petitioner providing be allowed to enter further “until such appearances time as the of number untried . . . ivhose in dictments been for than have more twelve outstanding (12) shall be reduced to a number less than months, 10”8
Petitioner than in filed the suit Federal court seek ing relief. The action was on the dismissed grounds lack of jurisdiction over subject the matter. Moore v. Carroll, F. 315 Supp. (E.D. 1129 Pa. 1970), decided July On 28, 1970. April 1971, Moore filed a second 30, in complaint the Federal court, motions to dismiss were filed and on subsequently granted 1971.9 August 3.1, On September the 13, 1972, petitioner filed petitions are that presently before us decision. Under the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Section 20110we are 7Although present lodged version Rule *301 was not July 5, 1972, with Criminal Procedural Rules Committee until 2, Judge parties, see note advised at the outset of the Brake they proceedings, proceeding present that were under the version objection by petitioner. the rule. No was raised at that time 8 provides While the rule the sanction that can remain in effect outstanding until all of the cases where have indictments been disposed of, Judge than 12 months have been Jamieson’s order merely required petitioner outstanding reduce number of year in one cases excess of than less 10. We therefore will not objections respect consider those that been raised have to the prohibition suggested present by the broader version the rule. 9 reported. A This not case was related case involved four Moore, complained prospective clients Mr. who that the rule receiving case, prevented from his services. them Their also insti Court, Carroll, in the Federal was1 dismissed. Stanson v. tuted Supp. (E.D. 1970), July 28, Pa. F. 484 decided 1970. II, §201, 1970, July (1972 P. L. Art. §211.201 P.S. Supp.). -73 jurisdiction original all
given but exclusive over not jurisdiction. prohibition of inferior to courts questions upon impact the lower In view of these responsibilities, have we courts administrative their jurisdiction accepted original matter.11 this objec- brief three constitutional Petitioner’s raises unnecessarily (1) restricts tions Rule *301: of their to counsel of criminal defendants Amend- Fourteenth choice violation the Sixth I, and Article United States Constitution ments (2) Pennsylvania Constitution; 9 of Section capricious, arbitrary vague, rule is overbroad, to the United violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (3) unconstitutional The rule is Constitution; States operation places in its it an unfair burden because lawyers also contends Black and defendants. Petitioner Attorney’s been allowed Office has District *7 initiating imple- power in and its and abuse discretion menting limits The amicus invocation of this rule. the petitioner’s allegation supporting the that brief to its unconstitutionally infringes right upon of crim- choosing. to of their own inal defendants counsel rely upon Judges the brief filed Trial to State chose respondents. by considering alleged infringement begin We upon right of criminal defendants to counsel of their choosing. At the we note that because the outset, own persons petitioner not fall within the class of does rights standing affected, are thus his to raise whose questioned. e.g., might well be Sierra See, this issue (1972). of doctrine Club v. U.S. Morton, standing court will have the of that a benefit insures resolving parties petitioner, truly a case. The adverse Pennsylvania granted petition tbe Trial a State We defendants, petition party Judges a as and of tbe to intervene argue file a Liberties Union to brief as amicus American Civil curiae.
beyond,question, standing challenge the has to effect upon right practice In Buie *301 his consider- law. ing challege, a are the effect such we forced to consider attorney-client of the rule on the formation an rela- tionship. inquiry necessarily Such would include the right practice of an law as well as the right of an accused to counsel his choice. The two rights opposite are no sides the same treat- coin, ment of the effect of Buie on *301 one be ade- would quate examining without its effect the other. Both parties significant portions and the amicus devoted respective subject, their briefs to con- thus basic invoking standing sideration for doctrine is satis- significant respondent registered fied. It is also only perfunctory petitioner’s challenge one-sentence standing. right Were we to fail to reach the counsel’s objection, certainly it almost would be raised subse- quently by standing (see 9), one with f.n. thus a con- judicial economy sideration for would also dictate that pur- we consider the issue. We therefore hold that no pose by allowing question would be served of stand- ing foreclose decision on the merits of this conten- tion. begin unquestioned premise
We must with the that, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Cons applicable through made titution,12 to the States regardless Fourteenth “the Amendment, accused fi guaranteed nancial status to the assistance choosing, either counsel counsel, his own or if indigent or otherwise unable to secure counsel, counsel *8 assigned by Wainwright, the court. Gideon v. [372 U.S. (1963)].” (Emphasis added.) 335 Commonwealth ex rel. v. 415 Rundle, Pa. 528, A. 533, 204 2d 446, Goodfellow (1964). right choosing 448 to counsel own one’s 12 prosecutions, “In enjoy all criminal the accused shall right have the Assistance Counsel for his defense.” 308 facing particularly significant because individual
is great in his confidence have should sanctions Velasques, Pa. attorney. 262, 437 v. Cf. Commonwealth (1970). A. 2d 353-354 351, occupation Similarly, right pursue way distinguishing choosing of our feature one’s is a right may country, not be cur- of life in and that this undoubtedly process "It of law. tailed without due right every States to follow citizen of the United may calling, profession choose, or he lawful business, imposed upon subject all only are as to such restrictions may right persons age, condition. This of like sex and distinguishing many respects fea- as be considered republican all vocations institutions. Here ture of our open All every one on like conditions. are years requiring pursued some livelihood, as sources prosecu- study great learning for their successful termed, tion. The as it is sometimes interest, or, acquired right to continue estate them, is, posses- prosecution, great to the often of value their arbitrarily from them, cannot be taken sors and personal property can be thus their real or than Virginia, 121-122 taken.” Dent v. 129 U.S. West (1889). agree petitioner that '"'301has an
We
with the
Rule
right
Philadelphia
effect
both the
criminal de
choosing
upon pe
of their
fendants to counsel
own
pursue
profession.
rights,
Those
titioner’s
his
particularly in the
absolute,
are not
face
however,
and efficient
the state’s interest
swift
adminis
justice.
Carey
tration of criminal
United States ex rel.
(3d
1969);
v.
Rundle,
v.
809 e.g., Wingo, (1972); Barker v. 407 U.S. 519 See, 514, Hamilton, Commonwealth v. A. 2d 449 Pa. 297 (1972); (2) right to Commonwealth’s have expeditiously disposed. right criminal “The to a speedy generically from trial is different of rights pro- in other enshrined for the Constitution general tection the accused. In con- addition to according persons cern all that accused be treated to procedures, decent and fair there is a societal interest providing separate speedy in trial which exists from, opposition and at times in ac- to, interests Wingo, (1972). cused.” Barker v. U.S. conflicting rights is clear It we must balance which proportions reach constitutional to order resolve this right On case. the one hand have the of criminal we defendants to counsel of their choice and the attorneys practice to criminal law. On we other, duty provide speedy have the state’s constitutional obligation and trials its to its criminal citizens have adjudicated quickly. violations Appeals As United States Court for the Third Circuit noted: private
“Desirable it as is that defendant obtain goal weighed counsel his own must be choice, against equally public and balanced desirable need for the efficent and effective administration criminal justice. The calendar control of modern criminal court metropolitan especially dockets, is a communities, sophisticated operation constantly buffeted conflict- ing rights—such relating forces. The accused’s as those speedy adequate opportunity prepare to a to an trial, constantly defense, confront witnesses—are potential prosecution’s legiti- or real conflict stability scheduling mate demands for some in the availability prosecution cases. witnesses often critically dependent predicability on the of the trial delays postponements only list. That increase the especially appear in court, of witnesses reluctance scarcely needs phenomenon which ais matters, elucidation. only prosecution which it is not
“Moreover, changes To calendar. from unscheduled suffer *10 one defendant permit accommodate a continuance rights defendant may prejudice of another in itself delayed continuance. of the because trial whose Played this indiscriminate conclusion, an extreme collapse judicial game chairs could musical of to the and work administration, of sound semblance awaiting many trial prejudice of ultimate criminal courts. say an arbi be that there should not to
“This is calendaring due trary of without cases and inelastic conflicting example, de regard, to the existence by particular differ counsel mands the service multi-judge by within or the schedules courts ent judicial there should too, In administration, court. judge the trial who must balance It is no absolutes. conflicting of court administration with demands rights that when conscious, of the accused, however, rights of those accused of he crime, he considers only in the case imme not those involved consider must diately him but also those other defendants before rights may by awaiting be affected trial whose delay.” Carey consequences rel. of trial United States ex (3d 1969) (Foot F. Cir. Rundle, 1210, 1214-15 2d v. omitted). note conflicting balancing rights, these four
In factors (1) be considered: Whether the state must interest effectively accomplished sought can be to be achieved infringe upon pro- will not manner which some interests rights; (2) by constitutional Whether the tected state sufficiently compelling compared when interest is justifies any infringement affected, the interests (3) Whether the state interest is interests; those suffi- ciently compelling justify degree infringement necessary (4) that is to effectuate that Wheth- interest; provision challenge represents er the under the narrow- possible infringement effectuating est consistent with the state interest involved.
I. The Lack of a Nou-Burdensome Alternative recognize While we interest in in- state’s this compelling, stance to be fundamental and we must first objectives be satisfied that these cannot be attained requiring infringement alternative means not an rights. Unquestionably, greater constitutional possibility caseload counsel the more imminent the scheduling delays conflicts which well result unavailability. occasioned right An counsel’s unfettered accept permit criminal cases would deliberately delay indefinitely completely society’s expeditious disposi- frustrate interest *11 tion of criminal matters. suggested,
No one has nor have we been able to conceive effective method to curtail the threat- by allowing ened other than evil, the court a reason- able restraint over the number of cases one given history at a have time. The of this case at- inadequacy special programs tests to to facilitate prompt disposal resorting of cases. Before to a curtail- attempted ment of Mr. Moore’scaseload the court below design special procedures in an effort to meet problems by petitioner’s extraordinarily heavy caused special judge, prosecutor A caseload. courtroom with supportive assigned staff was to handle Mr. Moore’s exclusively. assignment judges for this special avoiding was made with a unduly court view jury plea protracted bargaining trials and was encour- generate guilty pleas. aged to The court below is to be complimented for the conscientious effort exhibited,
ingenuity shown and the consideration demonstrated all of his clients. Yet of Mr. Moore and the interest satisfactorily proved re- ineffective to these measures problem. solve impossible physically it is it obvious that
Where dispose he has of the cases which for counsel delay, appearance it would be undue his without entered power suggest without that the court is unreasonable appear- continuing prevent to enter his Mm from until condition is recti- in additional matters ances fied. Justifies Some
II. Nature of the Interest State Rights Infringement Upon the Involved speedy trials interest in we noted the state’s As have obligation to To fulfill its constitutional two-fold: provide speedy trials; all criminal defendants with persons satisfy public’s accused to have speed. crime tried with reasonable promulgated, July In this rule was when PhiladelpMa criminal cases had untried 8,421 cases were 3,367 Court of Common Pleas and of those In Presi- 69-60, more than six months old. Memorandum Judge upon a conscientious dent Carkoll embarked bring trial six effort to all criminal cases to within months of the indictment. improved sigmficantly since
The situation has not supra 1969. In Commonwealth v. at Hamilton, 306-309, backlog PhiladelpMa this court the criminal reviewed upon responsibil and called all those entrusted with the ity managing court calendars to increase their efforts *12 backlogs produce speedy intoler to assure trials. Such upon society general, upon able in and tensions justice system particular. inability provide prompt a “The of courts to trial large backlog to a of cases in urban has contributed among things, courts other enables defendants which., effectively negotiate guilty pleas to lesser manipulate system. In offenses and otherwise addi- persons lengthy periods on released bond for await- tion, ing opportunity trial to commit other crimes. have awaiting longer an is free . . . accused Moreover, tempting opportunity the more his trial, becomes jump escape. delay Finally, bail and between arrest punishment may re- have a detrimental on effect habilitation. generally
“If an cannot make he accused bail, jail. local ... confined, This contributes to overcrowding generally deplorable state those exposure Lengthy institutions. to these lias conditions a destructive effect human character and makes rehabilitation of the individual offender much more difficult’. At the result times even be riot- violent ing. Finally, lengthy pretrial costly. detention is maintaining prisoner jail cost varies from $3 |9 per day, and this amounts millions across society wages might In Nation. addition, loses which support been and it must often earned, have families Wingo, incarcerated breadwinners.” Barker v. 407 U.S. (Footnotes omitted.) at 519-21. Rule When *301 perspective of the viewed backlog enormous criminal Philadelphia, it is clear that the in- state’s upon rights mandates some incursion terest invoked petitioner. Degree Infringement Upon III. the Constitu- tionally Necessary Signifi- Protected Areas to Further
cantly the State Interest Involved operates Rule *301 force an with more year dispose ten one than cases over old to of his old accepting any before additional clients. An attor- ney who falls within ambit of thereby the *13 practice infringement law. Ms an suffers infringement characterized as be cannot that WMle all-encompass- permanent nor neither minimis, de it is only dispose attorney question of his ing. need upon his no There is effect relief. old to obtain cases beyond city practice boundaries. practice the or his civil regu- permitted to be courts must noted, As we have attorneys’ to make in order caseloads late defense overwhelming backlog crim- reducing progress in the rights infringement here of the inal The rule’s cases. backlog problem upon salutary the effect at issue has ways. in two be cases will rule that the oldest the insures
First, problem in the criminal disposed A chroMc of first. easily disposed of are sldmmed system is that leaving backlog, more top diffi- the older, of the off the languish Cf. Common- further behind. cult cases help supra. alle- The rule would Hamilton, wealth v. requirement By invoking problem. rule’s this viate disposed of new before criminal cases be that all old aspect rule of the appearances be tMs entered, beyond at bar in the case its effect enhanced could be supra). (see f.n. 8, infringement occasioned is
Second, necessary all members continued efforts to insure backlog. It is reasonable bar to alleviate heavy caseload with a who an that assume exercise of the rule would self- the ambit not within avoid its sanction. in order to restraint arbitrary. argues the number ten that Petitioner judge particular he would number, than invoke Rather analysis an of each case. Such would merits time-consuming procedure arbitrary than the necessary to set numerical often standards It is at bar. possible bring efforts are made to all that to insure e.g., speedy Commonwealth Hamil- trials. v. See, about arbitrary say supra. ten is cannot We ton, place this line. to draw Only Regulation To Protect Narrowed
IV. Is Interest Involved? State Valid respondent agree that the state’s Thus, we *14 is such that reason- in these circumstances interest Fourteenth Amend- of the Sixth and able curtailment petitioner constitutionally offensive. is not ments reg- that if contend even some however, and the amicus, permissible the rule as drawn is over- instant ulation is unnecessarily agree. vague restrictive. We and broad, by may only infringement occasioned Rule *301 reasonably reduc- it is related to the be where sustained backlog. how- That end can be obtained, tion delay subject attorney’s only cases where the ever, by attorney’s primarily in- that has been occasioned ready ability appear to cases we otherwise for for disposition. remain for reason untried Where or combination of reasons other than the defense attor- ney’s inability appear invocation of Rule to trial, relationship objective have no to the *301 would designed meet. to was gives every On Rule *301 indication that it face, its automatically operates once the stated limit of old cases only exception being been exceeded, has fugitives or cases are in deferred “who are whose status incompetency good or other reason sufficient disputes permits . . .” the rule to the While as reason, accuracy year procedure old no of the list cases, challenge delay provided to reason particular case. An who is available and will- ing proceed to trial on all of his cases could never- pres- the ambit of fall within the rule as theless it is though delay ently drafted even was occasioned prepared, prosecution’s failure to be the failure 316 appear, by any or number of
witnesses other reasons attorney’s availability. that are unrelated “Where rights’ legisla- certain ‘fundamental are .. . involved, narrowly express only tive enactments must be drawn legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. (1965); Aptheker 381 U.S. v. Connecticut, Secretary 479, (1964); 378 U.S. Cantwell State, 500, (1940); v. 310 U.S. 307-308 Connecticut, see Eisen- (1972) stadt v. U.S. 463-464 Baird, 438, 460, concurring).” v. Roe J., 410 U.S. Wade, (White, (1972). derrogate important It would from the rights permit deprivation involved this case to their they way in no situations where conflict with the legitimate purpose sought state to be The rule served. fatally is thus overbroad. permits
Nor
it a
sufficient answer that the rule
upon “good
relief
cause shown”.
Divestment
important
rights
constitutional
at issue here
cannot
justified by
vague
susceptible
a standard so
as to be
arbitrary
inequitable interpretations. Baggett
v.
*15
(1964);
Bullitt, 377 U.S.
378-79
Smith v. Cali-
(1959).
361 U.S.
150-151
a
fornia,
Where
statute
reasonably susceptible
interpretations,
to two
courts
presume
Legislature
the
must
intends the result
not offend the
that does
Constitution. American Power
Light
(1946).
S.E.C.,
&
Co. v.
Concurring Opinion : Manderino Mr. Justice majority I of the concur that Rule 301 majority (see Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas objective relationship opinion) no to the has reasonable provides designed the Rule that the Rule was to meet; vague no that the Rule is too and over- standards; T broad. must add that the Rule also constitu- violates guarantees apply to all attor- tional tbat it does not neys spe- appearing Rule is courts. cifically application no aimed at counsel. It has defense prosecution. to counsel The Rule is thus one- petitioner’s and an con- sided obvious violation equal protection of the stitutional laws. requires attorney represent A criminal trial prosecution attorney represent and an the de- Any (although constitutional) fense. it is otherwise particular attorney representa- which restricts a particular but not tion does restrict representing prosecution raises what problems equal pro- be insurmountable under guarantees. tection
Rule a court rule. It 301 is is not and should not be prosecution applying only rule. Certain court rules *16 prosecution counsel and not to counsel for the defense present In the be valid. in context, however, which delay objective to eliminate the criminal trials the representation, restricting I fail to see difference prosecution between the defense the side since both represented sides in must a criminal trial and that requires attorneys, two one on each side. prosecution represents prose-
If counsel for involving cution ten or more defendants whose year why indictments are I over fail to see such old, representation prohibited exactly should not be representation same manner that defense counsel is prohibited. provisions
The Rule also contains order to insure that an a member of firm who is does not partners appearance allow his or to enter an associates why in order to avoid the Rule. I fail to see this same prohibition apply prosecu- should not counsel for prosecution appear- tion. If counsel enters an for given ance in a substitution of other counsel case, for prosecution permitted purpose should not be if the compliance to avoid with the Rule. majority,
Like the I commend the effort to eliminate delays in the trial of criminal A cases. rule, however, pos- cannot be constitutional which assumes a one-sided requires posture. ture a context which a two-sided In the context of Rule counsel is not a defense justifying reasonable classification restrictions which imposed upon prosecution. are not counsel In appearances by attorneys terms of for a criminal trial, only reasonable classification for a rule would be including the classification of trial counsel both defense prosecution. counsel and counsel Any designed delay to eliminate in the trial of only criminal cases must not meet the constitutional majority opinion, standards set forth in the but must protect petitioner’s equal also constitutional protection of the laws.