"Due diligence doesn't require perfect vigilance."

So, Superior Court Judge Mary Jane Bowes asked, is the fact that there was one breakdown in the Allegheny County criminal justice system -- albeit a serious one -- enough of a reason to completely dismiss a rape case?

She and two colleagues on the appellate bench must now decide.

David L. Bradford, of Wilkinsburg, was charged on Sept. 25, 2008, with rape and kidnapping stemming from an incident four days earlier.

According to Wilkinsburg police, Mr. Bradford abducted a woman at knifepoint and then took her to his apartment building, where he repeatedly sexually assaulted her.

Although charges against Mr. Bradford were bound over at a preliminary hearing before District Judge Kevin E. Cooper on Oct. 9, 2008, the case did not make its way into the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court for months.

The transcript of the hearing wasn't sent to the court until April 20, 2009, and then there was no other activity on the case until Oct. 9 -- 375 days after Mr. Bradford's arrest.

That's when his defense attorney filed a motion asking that the case be dismissed under Pennsylvania Rule 600, which requires that a defendant cannot remain in custody for more than 180 days, or be free on bond for more than 365, without a trial.

Judge Randal B. Todd dismissed the charges saying that prosecutors did not act with due diligence. Mr. Bradford was released and is now working as a cook and living with his grandmother, his lawyer said.

During oral arguments Thursday before the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Deputy District Attorney Michael Streily said that he doesn't believe his office should be punished because of a lapse in the system.

"The situation, the program we developed, was a reasonable effort," Mr. Streily said. "The fact it broke down doesn't mean we weren't duly diligent. We need to fix it."

He told the judges that his office is working in conjunction with the court system to do just that. In the meantime, he argued that it does not serve society's interest for an important prosecution to be thrown out.

Judge Bowes re-emphasized that point in questioning Mr. Bradford's attorney.

"What can we say about society's interest in this?" she asked Matthew Debbis, who represents Mr. Bradford.

He agreed that the charges against his client were serious -- something, he said, that should have caused the district attorney's office to be all the more careful.

According to Mr. Debbis, court rules say that the district attorney must have a record-keeping system in place to track criminal cases.

Instead of having its own, he continued, the prosecution relies on the magisterial district courts to process and track cases, which Mr. Debbis believes is unacceptable.

"They system appears to be working pretty well ... when they're processing 40,000 cases per year," Judge Bowes replied. "Why isn't that reasonable? We're not looking for exact perfection. We're looking for reasonable effort."

Judge John T. Bender, who also was joined by Senior Judge Robert E. Colville in hearing the case, spent much time questioning Mr. Debbis on Mr. Bradford's role in the delay.

"If you sit in jail for an entire year and never say anything ... " he started.

But Mr. Debbis interrupted him: "The case doesn't put any burden on Mr. Bradford."

Judge Bender continued: "The man sits in jail for an entire year, and never says anything to anybody."

Then, noting Mr. Bradford's extensive criminal record, Judge Bender said that he guessed the defendant knew what he was doing in not speaking up.

"It strikes me as extremely peculiar he never said anything," he concluded.

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.