In a groundbreaking decision, the Virginia Supreme Court reinstated a high-profile lawsuit, thrusting into the spotlight a pivotal battle over a teacher's fundamental rights. Peter Vlaming, a dedicated French teacher with nearly seven years of service, found himself at the center of a controversial firestorm.  Represented by the powerhouse legal team from Alliance Defending Freedom, Vlaming's case challenges the very core of Virginia law. The West Point School Board's decision to terminate Vlaming sent shockwaves through the community. At the heart of this contentious saga is Vlaming's ..read more

Have you ever wondered how a criminal case unravels, particularly when it comes to identification evidence? Step into the corridors of justice as we dissect the fascinating case of Sample v. Commonwealth of Virginia, where the spotlight is on the process of victim identification. We prod the underbelly of the judicial system, scrutinizing the identification procedure in question and how certainty, influence, and courage all play pivotal roles in the ultimate verdict. The conversation doesn't stop there. We dive deeper into the murky waters of criminal investigations and how law enforcement pr ..read more

Imagine being a part of an intense courtroom drama. Today, you'll be stepping into the shoes of legal giants, as we explore the intriguing case of Swinson v. Commonwealth. Our conversation zooms in on the concept of harmless error in criminal cases, and the ripple effect it may have on the jury verdict. Often, it's the weight of the evidence and the impact of jury instructions that shape the final outcome. Let's take a journey into the heart of this legal spectacle. We'll also take you behind the scenes of a captivating dialogue between Zagorski and Stalard. They represent the defense and Com ..read more

Are you ready to unlock the mysteries surrounding revocation proceedings and the concept of affirmative election? This episode promises to arm you with legal insights and court interpretations drawn from the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. DeLon. We dissect whether the violation conduct that occurred prior to the effective date of the statute should apply and if the preparation of sentencing guidelines qualifies as an affirmative election. You'll discover a fascinating twist: a failure to object does not necessarily amount to consent - an eye-opener in itself. Join us as we chart through ..read more

What if the car parked for months in your neighborhood could spark a riveting legal battle? Well, brace yourself as we journey through the intricate case of Bryant McCants versus CDMPB Enterprises LLC in our latest podcast episode. We dissect the multifaceted arguments surrounding the controversial conversion of an abandoned Mustang vehicle, unmasking potential missteps in the court of appeals' analysis. From the intricate layers of the Mako franchisee company's ownership to the evidence that underpinned the jury's verdict, we leave no stone unturned.  Are you ready to question everythin ..read more

Ever wondered how the concept of alibi defense can shape the outcome of a sexual abuse case? Prepare to go on an intellectual journey as the attorneys and court  dissect a case where the defense claims a broad timeframe of charges doesn’t sync with the evidence. The argument reaches to  the meaning of alibi, its spatial aspect, and how to categorize the evidence—is it alibi or impeachment?  What obligation did the defendant have to provide a notice of alibi?  Could trial counsel have submitted a notice of alibi, given that the record evidence fails to establish the time ..read more

Fasten your seatbelts as the court and counsel zoom into the nitty-gritty of Rule 3A15, exploring its relevance to double jeopardy principles. They ponder on the common law that forbids a judge from reconsidering a motion to strike, scrutinizing its boundaries and applications. The journey gets more twisted as the parties explore the question of the detrimental reliance of the oral ruling and the constitutional argument  that suggests states can draw the line earlier.  .The arguments conclude with a powerful argument from the Commonwealth urging the court to overrule the decision of ..read more

Could a grandmother who foots the bill for her grandchild's medical expenses in the wake of a crime be the rightful recipient of restitution? Join us as attorneys and the Supreme Court of Virginia unravel the legal labyrinth in the Commonwealth vs. Puckett case, with insights from legal experts Jordan Minot and Graham Bryant. The arguments navigate the murky waters of legal definitions, reevaluating the concept of a 'victim' with broader implications, and questioning whether indirect financial casualties of crime should be eligible for restitution. Diving deeper, the parties toss around the b ..read more

The ACLU of Virginia filed Prease v. Clarke in the Virginia Supreme Court, challenging the continued incarceration of Steven Prease and advocating for his immediate release from the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC). The case focuses on the interpretation of a law that expanded Virginia's earned sentence credit program, with the petition arguing that Mr. Prease had been unfairly denied the increased credits. Since its establishment in 1995, Virginia's earned sentence credit program has offered the possibility of early release for most incarcerated individuals. In 2020, t ..read more

The defendant challenged the admissibility of an in-court identification of him. Here's what the lower court (Court of Appeals) said: In the vast majority of contested criminal trials, a witness will take the stand and testify under oath that the defendant, who is present in the courtroom, is the person who committed the crime. It happens routinely in trials conducted in the courts of the Commonwealth and has happened for as long as there have been such trials and courts. Despite the fact such a question and answer in the course of a criminal trial was a common occurrence when the Virginia Dec ..read more