Kellerman, Adm'r v. McDonough

In this case the Virginia supreme Court held that when a parent gives up supervision and care of their child to another parent or adult, who is willing to watch and supervise the child, the supervising caregiver must accomplish the duty with reasonable care. However, the Court also stated that the supervising adult is not an insurer of the child's safety.

Unfortunately, in this case, a parent allowed the supervised child to ride with a young male who had the reputation for being a reckless driver and in complete contradiction to the instructions of the parent of the deceased child who told the supervising adult not to allow his child to ride in a car being driven by young males. The supervising parent ignored the instructions and allowed the decedent to ride in a car driven by a young male. The young male was involved in an accident, and the supervised child was killed.

Atkins v. Commonwealth

In this case, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant cannot be convicted for obstruction of justice based on his flight and having originally given a false name. The defendant's conviction under Section 18.2-460 is reversed.

Jones v. Commonwealth

The Virginia Supreme Court stated, "A positive alert from a narcotics detection dog establishes probable cause to conduct a search of a vehicle and that the evidence seized during the search is admissible after a proper foundation has been laid to show that the dog was sufficiently trained to be reliable in detecting narcotics.""

Arizona v. Johnson

In Arizona v. Johnson, the United States Supreme Court stated, "In a traffic stop setting, the first Terry condition - a lawful investigatory stop - is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity. To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, ...the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous." The Court further referenced that the police may frisk an armed passenger without any evidence of a crime.

John Grisham, the well known author, is preparing a new screen play. The author is focusing the screen play on the case of Michelle Moore-Bosco, who was raped and murdered in 1997. Four of the five defendants convicted in the case are now asserting that they are innocent and that the police coerced their confessions.

The story has garnered national attention. Furthermore, the author has stated he believes the "Norfolk Four" are innocent.

Mwangi v. Commonwealth

A purported prior order from the general district court was never endorsed by the judge. The trial court could not prove the prior conviction during a trial for driving under the influence, third offense. The Supreme Court reverses the judgement and remands the case for trial on a a lesser included misdemeanor.

Commonwealth v. Fuller

In this Norfolk Circuit Court case, a vague affidavit did not support a warrant. Thus, the court suppressed the evidence seized from defendant's home.

Rudolph v. Commonwealth

The Supreme Court reverses a defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. The police's stop of defendant's vehicle violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The fact that the defendant and a companion could be preparing to rob the gas station in an area where the police increased their presence due to recent robberies and break-ins did not equate to a reasonable suspicion.

Brown v. Commonwealth

In this case the Court of Appeals basically said that the best evidence rule only applies to writings. Thus, a store employee could testify that he observed the defendant on a surveillance video as the defendant stole crab legs.

Edwards v. Commonwealth

A purse is not a burglarious tool under Section 18.2-94 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. An en banc Court of Appeals reverses the trial courts guilty finding. The Court basically said that even though a woman emptied her purse to fill it with stolen merchandise, the purse itself is not a burglarious tool.

Menendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

On June 25, 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Menendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. The Court held that generally, lab analysts must appear in court to offer testimony instead of submitting their findings in a sworn report. The holding may have a tremendous impact in upholding the defendant's right to hear witness testimony pursuant to the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution.