Juniper v. Com.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a witness’s delay in reporting knowledge of a case is “appropriately weighed as part of the entire issue of witness credibility, which is left to the jury to determine”
• holding that a witness’s delay in reporting knowledge of a case or inconsistencies in testimony are “appropriately weighed as part of the entire issue of witness credibility, which is left to the jury to determine” (emphasis added)
• observing that failure to request a ruling from the trial court on a motion resulted in a waiver
• holding counsel “acquiesced” in the trial court’s decision by responding to it with, “That’s fine”
• holding memorandum filed with court did not require ruling because “the record reflects -5- 18 Va. App. 427, 433, 444 S.E.2d 269, 274 (1994
• holding that appellant who failed to assert his Confrontation Clause claims at trial waived those claims for purposes of appeal, since “a general assertion of a due process violation in the trial court is insufficient to preserve this argument . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).