First off, I originally titled the post something like "VA radar traffic trial". A moderator must have renamed it.
Regarding the question, I think the office did mention visual estimation but can't recall for sure at this point.
I've decided not to appeal to Circuit Court.
Anyway, here is some additional information I gathered that may be helpful in the future. I'm not an attorney but when referencing the case law below it's probably best to have a photocopy for the judge from a legal publication that the judge would recognize (something found in a law library) as opposed to something pulled from the web.
If you can get the list of approved radar detactors you can ask the prosecution what radar unit was used and then determine whether the radar unit is legal. It may be a long shot of course because it would seem odd for a locality to adquire an unapproved radar unit.
The prima facie evidence may be rebutted by showing that the radar device is not an approved device. See Scafetta v. Arlington County, 13 Va. App. 646, 649, 414 S.E.2d 438, 440, aff'd on reh'g, 14 Va. App. 834, 425 S.E.2d 807 (1992).
If the officer does not testify to having tested the radar device itself, then make a motion to dismiss the radar evidence per this write up/case law:
The Virginia Supreme Court has held that Va. Code § 46-215.2, the predecessor to Va. Code § 46.2-882, did "not eliminate the necessity for the Commonwealth to prove that the machine used for measuring speed had been properly set up and recently tested for accuracy." Royals v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 876, 881, 96 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1957). The [*5] Court has upheld the Royals rule as applied to Va. Code § 46.2-882. See Gray v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 663, 666, 446 S.E.2d 480, 482, 11 Va. Law Rep. 45 (1994).
In Gray, the Supreme Court held that either tuning fork tests or speedometer tests would be deemed sufficient to prove the accuracy of the device used for measuring speed. Id. Although Va. Code § 46.2-882 provides an exception to the hearsay rule for a certificate showing the accuracy of the speedometer or tuning fork used in testing the device, it does not provide such an exception for a certificate showing the accuracy of the device itself. Therefore, the "Certificate of Calibration" from Kustom Signals is not admissible as evidence that the Laser was "properly set up and recently tested for accuracy."
The only evidence offered by the Commonwealth that the Laser was recently tested for accuracy was the testimony of Officer Ocheltree that he checked the device each morning to confirm its ability to detect two specified distances. However, the Officer stated that this would not be sufficient to confirm its accuracy in its ability to determine the speed of [*6] a moving vehicle.
Accordingly, the Court finds that as the Commonwealth has not met its burden of proving that the Laser was "properly set up and recently tested for accuracy," testimony regarding the results of the Laser is inadmissible and the charge should be dismissed.

