Lux 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 that due process does not entitle defendant to trial free of the appearance of impropriety
• holding that “[t]he due process rights of a criminal defendant under both the Virginia and United States Constitutions are violated when the defendant is prosecuted by a Commonwealth’s attorney who has a conflict of interest relevant to the defendant’s case”
• addressing situations where criminal defendant’s former counsel is hired as prosecutor and explaining under what circumstances entire prosecutor’s office must be disqualified; refusing to apply per se rule of disqualification
• refusing to adopt a per se rule disqualifying an entire Commonwealth’s office in cases where one prosecutor has a conflict because he acted as a criminal defendant’s former counsel
• eschewing a per se disqualification rule in favor of “a more flexible, case-by-case approach”
• eschewing a per se disqualification rule in favor of “a more flexible, case-by-case approach”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).