The rules of evidence in Virginia have a for long history which had began in the year 1983 when a committee had been appointed by Virginia state bar for the purpose of developing the rules of evidence. In Virginia the law related to discovery is very limited when discussed in the light of the other states. In the state the law of discovery is derived from constitutional and statue law. The precise constitutional law or case in relation to discovery rules in the case of Brady vs. Maryland. The rules which have been provided by the Virginian Supreme Court are in compliance with the Bardy case. The case requires certain information to be shared by the commonwealth. In relation to the information it consists of things that are exculpatory and be likely to improve innocence and refute guilt, recording, videos or statements of the accused along with the criminal history of the accused. The supreme court of Virginia has resisted the expansion of rules relating to discovery as compared to the other states (Keane & McKeown, 2014).
Under North Carolina General Statutes § 15A-501 all materials, including photos, notes, phone messages, etc., must be turned over to the state for prosecution of each felony case. However this is not the situation in the case of every state and rules in relation to the submission of evidence may differ. As discussed above the rules in relation discovery in Virginia are very different and limited. The supreme court of Virginia restrains itself from expansion of rules related to discovery. In the state of Virginia prosecutors has to be vigilant in relation to talking to witness, police reports and in the process of following their own conversation for figuring out what has to be submitted to the defense counsel. In Virginia additionally unlike Carolina reliance is put upon exculpatory information only which is used to improve innocence and disprove guilt. It is the role of the prosecutor to identify what information is relevant and what is not. Therefore in Virginia only Bardy information has to be submitted to the prosecutor and not all information (Wigmore, 2016).
In the case of Raynard Jenkins and Bob Marshall v Fred Smith, Bill Jones, and Roger Fish OCA: 054382 the accusation is in relation to a first degree murder. In this case Reggie Bushwick had been interviewed by Agent Pete Moss and in the process provided that he saw a person chasing marshal with a gun in his hand. Marshal was a drug deal as Bushwick used to purchase his dope from him. O’Dell had also been interviewed by Agent Pete Moss who provided that she had heard a car door slammed and a brown car speeded of towards the corner. She was not able to see that who was driving the car as a oak tree restricted her view. In addition she provided that as far as her knowledge she did not see the car in the area before. Upon the interview of Beatrice Conner it was discovered that his facts were same as that of Bushwick
Keane, A., & McKeown, P. (2014). The modern law of evidence. Oxford University Press, USA.
North Carolina General Statutes § 15A-501
Raynard Jenkins and Bob Marshall v Fred Smith, Bill Jones, and Roger Fish OCA: 054382
Wigmore, J. H. (2016). Wigmore on evidence. Wolters Kluwer.