A Middleburg man running for the Republican nomination for a state Senate seat has been indicted in Loudoun County on charges of election fraud and perjury. The Washington Post reports that the indictments were made public today, three weeks before voters go to the polls.
Mark Tate, a restaurateur and the former vice mayor of Middleburg, faces Jill Holtzman Vogel, a Warrenton lawyer, for the GOP nod for the seat of retiring Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr., I-Winchester. The seat’s district covers parts of Loudoun and Fauquier counties, all of Clarke and Frederick counties and the City of Winchester.
Tate’s lawyer, Ed MacMahon, told the Post that Tate would plead not guilty to the charges. MacMahon blasted the timing of the indictments, so close to the June 12 primary date. The prosecutor who brought the charges, Jim Plowman, said politics had nothing to do with it. He added that a special prosecutor, King George County Commonwealth's Attorney Matt Britton, will handle the case from now on.
Showing posts with label Loudoun County. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loudoun County. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Discovery: voice-mail recording admissible
What happens when a speaker leaves a voice-mail message for an attorney, whose recording device doesn’t shut off?
The message left on the machine can come into evidence in a real estate case, according to Loudoun County Circuit Judge Thomas D. Horne. In Pacific Century Development & Realty Inc. v. Wheatland Farms LLC (VLW 005-8-197), a developer is asking for specific performance of a contract to buy a vineyard.
On March 28, Horne handed down discovery rulings in the case, including denying the plaintiff developer’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the conversation between two parties to a planned three-party call that was inadvertently left on the attorney’s voice mail.
The parties apparently planned a three-way call. When the attorney’s voice mail answered, the callers left a message. But “the device, unbeknownst to the parties to the conversation, continued to record a conversation between the two parties,” Horne wrote in his March 28 decision (VLW 007-8-112).
Any lawyer who has had her voice mail roll over on a long-winded caller knows what she is hearing is a monologue, not a conversation. The law agrees, according to the court.
Virginia’s statute on using recorded conversations, Va. Code § 8.01-420.2, deliberately uses the word “conversations,” not “communications,” which doesn’t cover the one-way message left on a voice mail.
The message left on the machine can come into evidence in a real estate case, according to Loudoun County Circuit Judge Thomas D. Horne. In Pacific Century Development & Realty Inc. v. Wheatland Farms LLC (VLW 005-8-197), a developer is asking for specific performance of a contract to buy a vineyard.
On March 28, Horne handed down discovery rulings in the case, including denying the plaintiff developer’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the conversation between two parties to a planned three-party call that was inadvertently left on the attorney’s voice mail.
The parties apparently planned a three-way call. When the attorney’s voice mail answered, the callers left a message. But “the device, unbeknownst to the parties to the conversation, continued to record a conversation between the two parties,” Horne wrote in his March 28 decision (VLW 007-8-112).
Any lawyer who has had her voice mail roll over on a long-winded caller knows what she is hearing is a monologue, not a conversation. The law agrees, according to the court.
Virginia’s statute on using recorded conversations, Va. Code § 8.01-420.2, deliberately uses the word “conversations,” not “communications,” which doesn’t cover the one-way message left on a voice mail.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
