Discovery in criminal cases; duty to provide. (HB2452)
Introduced By
Del. Rick Morris (R-Carrollton)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Discovery in criminal cases; duty to provide. Provides that the attorney for the Commonwealth, upon written notice by an accused to the court and to the attorney for the Commonwealth, must permit the accused to inspect, copy, or photograph (i) any relevant written or recorded statements or confessions made by the accused and the substance of any oral statements or confessions made by the accused to any law-enforcement officer; (ii) any relevant written reports of autopsies, ballistic tests, fingerprint analyses, handwriting analyses, blood, urine, and breath tests, other scientific reports, and written reports of a physical or mental examination of the accused or the alleged victim; (iii) designated books, papers, documents, tangible objects, buildings, or places, or copies or portions thereof, that are within the possession, custody, or control of the Commonwealth; and (iv) any relevant police reports. The bill provides that the attorney for the Commonwealth may withhold or redact certain information from such disclosures made and that the accusedmay file a motion to compel disclosure of any information withheld or redacted. The bill also provides that if the accused files a written notice that the accused must permit the Commonwealth to inspect, copy, or photograph any (a) books, papers, documents, photographs, motion pictures, mechanical or electronic recordings, tangible objects, or copies or portions thereof which are within the possession, custody, or control of the accused and which the accused intends to introduce in evidence at the trial and (b) photograph results or reports of physical or mental examinations or of tests, measurements, or experiments made in connection with the case, or copies thereof, within the possession and control of the accused which the accused intends to introduce in evidence at the trial or which were prepared by a witness whom the accused intends to call at the trial, when the results or reports relate to his testimony. The accused's duty to provide discovery shall be in addition to any duty to provide reciprocal discovery pursuant to Rule 3A:11 of the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia. Read the Bill »
Outcome
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 01/20/2017 | Presented and ordered printed 17103964D |
| 01/20/2017 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
| 01/24/2017 | Assigned Courts sub: Criminal Law |
| 02/01/2017 | Subcommittee recommends laying on the table |
| 02/07/2017 | Left in Courts of Justice |
Comments
When the tables turn and the same injustice that has been happening for decades to thousands of others......happens to someone who has the ability to fix it, then all of a sudden a solution is proposed.
In 2007, we personally experienced Trial by Ambush in Hanover County,VA with ZERO Discovery available to us but yet we were faced with a Plea Deal and if we didn't take the deal then the unknown Discovery would head to a Grand Jury.
Virginia's well known "Trial by Ambush" (no requirement to provide Discovery to defendants) has been willfully ignored by the Virginia Legislature FOREVER.
In 2014 a lengthy study by an independent Committee was released that strongly reform. Nothing happened.
Then in 2015 the VA Supreme Court took up the issue but in the end (December 2015)in a one-paragraph decision, they too declined to take action.
But now that a Virginia Delegate has personally experienced Virginia's extremely unjust no-Discovery rule, here we have a Bill (by that Delegate) proposing a fix for 2017.
It's about time this Bill is proposed, but the irony and hypocrisy that comes with it is almost too much for me.