A Virginia Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (NOV), or in the Alternative, for a New Trial — for prejudicial statements at trial, is a legal motion filed by the defense or prosecution in a Virginia court to challenge the fairness of a trial based on prejudicial statements made during the proceedings. This motion seeks to overturn a jury's verdict or request a new trial due to the impact of inflammatory or improper statements that may have unfairly influenced the jury's decision-making process. In cases where prejudicial statements are identified, the court may rule in favor of the motion, leading to a retrial or modification of the judgment. There are different types of Virginia Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or in the Alternative, for a New Trial related to prejudicial statements at trial. These include: 1. Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (NOV): This motion argues that, despite a jury's verdict, there was insufficient evidence presented during the trial to support the verdict. In the context of prejudicial statements, this motion may contend that the prejudicial statements significantly impacted the jury's decision, rendering the verdict unjust or compromised. 2. Motion for New Trial: In cases where prejudicial statements are deemed to have influenced the fairness of the trial, a motion for a new trial can be filed. This motion requests the court to set aside the original verdict and order a new trial to ensure a fair and impartial examination of the case. The basis for the motion would be the prejudicial statements made during the trial. 3. Motion to Suppress Prejudicial Statements: Instead of seeking a new trial or judgment, this motion requests the court to exclude or prohibit the introduction of certain prejudicial statements made during the trial. The aim is to prevent the statements from tainting the jury's perception of the case and avoid potential unfair influence on their decision-making. Prejudicial statements at trial may include personal opinions or comments made by witnesses, attorneys, or the judge that are designed to inflame the emotions of the jury rather than focusing on the facts of the case. Examples of prejudicial statements could involve discussing the defendant's past criminal history, referencing irrelevant and potentially misleading information, making inflammatory comments about the defendant's character, or using strong emotional appeals outside the realm of evidence. In conclusion, a Virginia Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or in the Alternative, for a New Trial, focusing on prejudicial statements at trial, allows the defense or prosecution to challenge the fairness of a verdict or request a new trial based on the impact of inflammatory or improper statements. This legal recourse aims to ensure that the jury's decision is not unduly affected by prejudicial comments, thereby upholding the principles of justice and the right to a fair trial.