Wilson v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that merely watching a video does not confer “personal, direct knowledge of the facts occurring and the scene captured on the tape”
• finding video was authenticated by victim’s testimony that “the tape accurately showed the assault on him as it was occurring” and thus “corroborated and portrayed graphically the victim’s testimony”
• “Because a witness with knowledge testified that the videotape was what it claimed to be, the Commonwealth did not need to prove the accuracy of the process that produced it.”
• a proper foundation for video and still images was laid by the victim’s “personal, direct knowledge” of the assault when testifying that the video “accurately showed the assault on him as it was occurring”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Michael Eugene Donati v. Commonwealth of Virginia
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2002-03-05· cited 14×
• Tara Ann Baez v. Commonwealth of Virginia
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2023-11-14
• Baez v. Commonwealth of Virginia
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2024-12-19

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Stamper v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1979-08-30· cited 380×
• Goins v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1996-04-19· cited 178×
• Spencer v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1989-09-22· cited 119×
• Ford v. Florida
  Supreme Court· 1980-04-14· cited 78×
• Ferguson v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1972-03-06· cited 46×
• Mullins v. Clifton
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1963-09-11· cited 1×