Khavkin v. Clarke

The court will not dismiss the pending petition for habeas corpus. The petitioner contends that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest and that, as a result, counsel coerced him to plead guilty. Sufficient evidence exists to show at… Read More ›

United States v. Smith (P)

In the defendants’ trial for gang-related violence, the district court properly addressed some jurors’ fears about gang retaliation and admitted an FBI agent’s expert testimony decoding intercepted calls between gang members. After learning of one juror’s fears, the district judge… Read More ›

Reyes v. Commonwealth (P)

The trial court properly denied a continuance sought under Code § 19.2-159.1. Under that statute, the only decision the legislature has left to a court’s discretion is what continuance, if any, is reasonable. The continuance provision serves only to protect the… Read More ›

Porter v. Commonwealth (U)

In a hearing on revocation of the defendant’s suspended sentence, the trial court did not err in admitting an out-of-court verbal statement to the defendant’s probation officer. The defendant’s probation conditions included having no visitors in his state-provided motel room… Read More ›

Bennett v. Commonwealth (P)

Admission of video and audio recordings reflecting a drug sale didn’t violate the defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. The video and photographs made from it were admitted as silent witnesses. The video does not reflect any… Read More ›

United States v. Delavan

The defendant’s attorney is disqualified due to a serious potential conflict, in that he will likely be required to impeach the credibility of a witness who he previously represented. Motion to inquire granted; counsel disqualified. United States v. Delavan, No…. Read More ›

United States v. Camara (P)

The court affirmed the appellant’s convictions arising from his participation in a scheme to resell luxury vehicles using stolen identities. The appellant’s indictment charged him with conspiring “with Ray Ekobena and others, known and unknown,” to violate three different federal… Read More ›

United States v. Ritchie

Expert testimony from a former Drug Enforcement Agency chemist regarding the synthetic drug “spice” would have been cumulative and, thus, not material to the defendants’ convictions for drug crimes. At trial, the defendants had been allowed to produce two other… Read More ›

Commonwealth v. Barrington

Although a juvenile defendant initially invoked his right to counsel post-Miranda, he knowingly and intelligently waived the right by asking to talk to a detective after speaking with his mother. The detective had facilitated the phone call with the defendant’s… Read More ›