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.