Arthur v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding statements voluntary despite the police showing the defendant “dummy” laboratory reports containing fabricated fingerprint and DNA evidence
• noting that Virginia courts “consistently have held that a lie by a law enforcement officer does not, in and of itself, require a finding that a resulting confession was involuntary” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• reject ing argument that “dummy” DNA reports rendered confession involuntary; declining to draw bright line prohibition because false documents were used
• “Virginia appellate courts consistently have held that a lie by a law enforcement officer 'does not, in and of itself, require a finding that a resulting confession was involuntary.’ ”
• in determining effect of false incriminating documents on voluntariness of confession, noting defendant's ability \to make choices\ by declining, during several prior interviews with police, to incriminate himself
• “Virginia appellate courts consistently have held that a lie by a law enforcement officer ‘does not, in and of itself, require a finding that a resulting confession was involuntary.’” (quoting Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 605, 616 (1984))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).