Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 17 n. 7; see also Vinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 459, 469, 522 S.E.2d 170, 177 (1999); Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App. 646, 651, 472 S.E.2d 649, 652, aff'd on reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 696, 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399, 406-07, 412 S.E.2d 189, 193 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 244 Va. 218, 420 S.E.2d 713 (1992); Thompson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 117, 122, 390 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1990). The DUI statutes nowhere provide for a suppression remedy for procedural violations. Instead, Code § 18.2-268.11 states that a violation of the procedural steps of Code §§ 18.2-268.2 through 18.2-268.9 “shall go to the weight of the evidence and shall be considered with all the evidence in the case.” See Shumate v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 877, 883, 153 S.E.2d 243, 247 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Snider v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 729, 734, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court (B) holding that procedural violations merely affect the weight of the evidence (C) holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses (D) holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative (E) holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation
Output (English): holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative