The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Husske v. Commonwealth
No. 951880Supreme Court of Virginia
951880 Husske v. Commonwealth 09/13/1996 The Court of Appeals properly concluded that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution did not require that t…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
951880 Husske v. Commonwealth 09/13/1996 The Court of Appeals properly concluded that the Due Process and Equal Protection clause…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- September 13, 1996
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
951880 Husske v. Commonwealth 09/13/1996 The Court of Appeals properly concluded that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution did not require that this indigent defendant receive, at the Commonwealth's expense, a DNA expert to assist with his defense. Further, defendant's statements were not the product of compulsion and, thus, his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated and the judgment is affirmed. -- Opinion Footnotes Edited 2/97
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
Affirmed
The court's record, as written
951880 Husske v. Commonwealth 09/13/1996 The Court of Appeals properly concluded that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution did not require that this indigent defendant receive, at the Commonwealth's expense, a DNA expert to assist with his defense. Further, defendant's statements were not the product of compulsion and, thus, his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated and the judgment is affirmed. -- Opinion Footnotes Edited 2/97
Outcome words in this text: affirmed.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links