Ballistic testing and identification limited in Maryland

[Aguila Blanca]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCr4q-HU7JQ

The Maryland Supreme Court has ruled that a firearms expert cannot state that a bullet came from a particular firearm. They can testify that ballistic marks are "consistent with" a particular firearm, but they cannot state the a bullet recovered from a crime scene did or must have come from a particular firearm.

Now we need 49 other states to follow suit.

 

[44 AMP]

Now we need 49 other states to follow suit.

Do we? I mean "need" this??

isn't it enough that when an "expert" makes a flat, no wiggle room declarative statement the defense can object and the judge sustain the objection?

Perhaps what we need is for every prospective juror to be required to watch My Cousin Vinney before being seated on the jury.....

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Do we? I mean "need" this??

isn't it enough that when an "expert" makes a flat, no wiggle room declarative statement the defense can object and the judge sustain the objection?

Yes, IMHO we do need this.

No, it isn't enough that the defense can object. That which has been heard (by the jury) cannot be unheard. This case would not have made it to the Maryland Supreme Court if the defense had not made the objection, and been overruled by the judge.

 

[44 AMP]

For some reason I was always under the impression that experts testifying had their testimony reviewed in advance and were trained/coached to never use absolutes but to use the phrase "is consistent with" or something very similar.

I suppose we need a ruling demanding this, in case the DA's people don't do their job well enough???

I know the bell cannot be unrung, what's heard cannot be unheard, but I've always wondered, when the judge orders something stricken from the record, the statement is removed, but is the judge's order that it be removed retained in the transcript?

 

[Jim Watson]

I have wondered about recording testimony so objected statements could be edited out and the jury not "accidentally" be exposed to opinions, leading questions, and assorted courtroom bloviating.

 

[Metal god]

The interesting thing about that case was the defendant has now one on two separate appeals. I forget the first one but he was retried after winning his first appeal . He’s now spent 11 years in jail and is facing his third trial after winning this most recent appeal .

Yes an expert sworn in as such stating no other firearm could have fired the round that killed the person in question is pretty hard for a defendant to counter when the defendant has already stated the firearm in question was his .

It’s my understanding that it’s less that you can’t tell what firearm fired the bullet . It’s more that there has been no standardized procedures or studies affirming the accuracy of this type of testing .

 

[44 AMP]

Yes an expert sworn in as such stating no other firearm could have fired the round that killed the person in question is pretty hard for a defendant to counter when the defendant has already stated the firearm in question was his .

Actually its not as difficult as you might think, and that's why experts are trained to say "is consistent with" and not "absolutely came from the crime gun".

The difficulty is convincing jurors who don't know the reality of ballistic ID, but do know what they've been "taught" watching a lifetime of tv dramas where ID is always simple and absolutely positive.

IF(and I emphasize "if") the crime gun has some unique tool mark or scratch that no other gun has, and transfers that mark to the bullet THEN a case can be made for an absolute match. But if NOT, then they can only go by the regular rifling marks. Also be aware that tool marks and scratchers can change over time with rounds fired and cleanings. This is seldom the case when the crime gun is recovered shortly after the crime, but if it is not, if say the gun is recovered a decade or more later, it may still have individual marks but those marks might have changed (been worn) through shooting and (poor) cleaning and not be a clear positive match to the marks left on the crime bullet.

IF (again that word) all they really have is the basic rifling, all they can positively state is what twist it is, and which maker(s) use that twist. Say the slug in question is a .38 and shows it was fired from a gun with a 1-14" twist.

Colt uses that twist. SO that bullet is consistent with having been fired from a Colt, not a S&W that uses a 1-18 3/4" twist.

However, EVERY Colt .38 has that same 1-14" twist, so you need something more specific to link the bullet to a specific Colt revolver.

Also keep in mind that, in court while the facts matter, and what can be proven matter, in the end what matters most is what the jury believes.

Means, motive, and opportunity are the requirements and it can be a "tactical error" for the prosecution to try and make it an absolute when leaving it "consistent with" can be enough for a conviction.

remember that tv crime show writers can do anything they want and make it seem plausible when actual reality is something different. And most people who are not expert on these matters (and if they are, they probably won't be seated on the jury) have been conditioned by TV shows their entire lives. Some folks will go with that, no matter what some "suit" says in court....

 

[Metal god]

The difficulty is convincing jurors who don't know the reality of ballistic ID, but do know what they've been "taught" watching a lifetime of tv dramas where ID is always simple and absolutely positive.

That was pretty much my point but even if a Dr or other professional says something and the court identifies said person as an expert that puts a lot of weight behind his testimony . As much as I think I know everything, I simply don’t and often rely on others in areas I lack the knowledge.

Example - I have s friend that had me read and watch a lecture and interview on a guy by the name Nasim Herriman . In short he’s a guy that supposedly fixed or finished Einstein’s work .

A few weeks later my friend asked me what I thought and I said I’m not done researching what he said to answer that question. They looked puzzled and said I don’t understand and I said either do I haha . What he was saying was/is WAY above my pay grade and I needed to research what other experts in the field think about his work before I could even begin to have my own thoughts on yhe subject .

Anyways yeah I was thinking the jury hearing the defendant’s gun IS the firearm that fired the fatal shot would be pretty convincing coming from an “expert” and the jury not knowing any better .

 

[44 AMP]

Absolute positive "matches" are, in court, a double edged blade with no guard. IF there is a absolute positive match it still may mean little or nothing, and if there is any "reasonable doubt cast on the match, or the methodology used to determine the match, the results can be the opposite of what the prosecutor intended.

Popular misconceptions play a significant role in many cases. So does the precise WORDS used in court. Words used conversationally and having an accepted meaning in context can have a much different meaning in court.

One example of this is "minute" vs. "moment. Tell the court, under oath, that you stopped at the stop sign, waited "a minute", then pulled out and you have just sworn that you waited a full 60 seconds, before you pulled out. IF it turns out you didn't wait a full 60 seconds and it was only 20, 30, or 40 seconds, you have lied under oath and ALL your testimony is now suspect.

Simply because a common figure of speech was used in a setting where the literal meaning is needed. IF you said you waited "a moment" the exact amount of time you waited would be irrelevant.

Having an identical match between a bullet and a gun might not even matter. over the years I've been in numerous "BS session" where someone claims, that if they ever were to commit murder they would simply use a shotgun, because "cops can't match ballistics on a shotgun".

And, to a point, they are right, but those who say that tend to be amazed when it is explained to them that a ballistic match isn't necessary for a conviction and that by using a shot gun, they are actually making the prosecution's job easier.

the prosecution doesn't have to prove the shot came from your gun. All they need to prove is motive, opportunity, and that you have a shotgun (means).

Again I recommend the movie My Cousin Vinney. Its fiction, and the language is full of "f-bombs" but the situations illustrated in various scenes are excellent examples of things that can, and I'm sure have happened in real life.

The FBI expert's testimony about analyzing rubber samples from the crime scene tire marks and the defendent's car is one I always think of when "identical" match comes up.

Michelin XGV R78-14.....

pretty sure you can find the clip on the web, watch it, you'll see what I mean

 

[Metal god]

Love that movie !