Litigation Support

Virginia has had its share of problems with courtroom videotapes. First, as I reported a few days ago, we had a videotaped reenactment that was, to put it mildly, somewhat less than accurate.

And now we have a case where a convicted murderer has been granted a new trial because the jury evidently had access to material on a videotape that the court had ordered redacted. The material showed the defendant casually chatting with jail guards not long after the murder of his girlfriend and prior to being questioned by the police. Apparently, it was thought that the defendant's attitude was very casual and that the prejudicial value of this segment outweighed any probative value, so it was ordered redacted.

The defendant had been convicted of second degree murder and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He wll be retried in May.

The newspapers don't specify how this technology snafu came to pass, but given the time and expense of murder trials, I would hope that the responsible party was held accountable.

C'mon Virginia - I hate having to tell these tales about my own state. Let's get it right!

Hat tip to Peter Vieth from Virginia Lawyers Weekly.

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com   Phone: 703-359-0700

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq