From Bubba613:
I don't agree that that's the next logical step, but I think most of us will agree wholeheartedly that it's unacceptable!
Great strategy.
The "last resort" will include an investigation and perhaps prosecution.
The jury never saw the evidence--the trial judge refused to admit it. However, it is not the outcome of the Bias case in the trial courts on which a prudent person would bet his record, fortune, and personal freedom. That the appellate courts evidently did not find the trial court judge to have been in error might tend to give one pause, though.
In the case of most kinds of evidence, all evidence that is introduced is to be admitted and weighed by the jury. Scientific forensic evidence and expert testimony is another matter--the trial judge will decide, based on certain criteria, whether that kind of evidence will be admitted in court. I believe that one will almost always see fingerprints, DNA, hair and fiber evidence, mass spec testing data, etc. admitted; to the best of my knowledge one will not see polygraph test results admitted anywhere as evidence in a capital case.
Should GSR become an issue, the trial judge would have to decide on the admissibility as evidence of GSR test data on the ammunition used by the defendant. My lay interpretation of the criteria now set forth for the Federal courts is that handload test data would probably not be admitted. The new Federal precedent would likely not be determinative in a state court, but the principles involved in the Federal precedent could certainly influence the trial court judge's decision--the state would no doubt make the same kind of arguments that influenced the Supreme Court.
One might reasonably assess the likelihood that the refusal of a trial judge to admit ammunition test results might determine the trial outcome as low, unless the lack of GSR evidence on the victim were to weigh heavily. One might reasonably assess the likelihood that the choice of hand loads might influence the jury's assessment of the defendant's state of mind and determine the outcome as very low. That these factors, in combination with other evidence or the lack thereof, might tip the balance in the minds of the jury cannot be reasonably argued, however. And when assessing risks, likelihood must be considered in combination with the potential consequences, which in this discussion include conviction for murder in a case in which the fact that the defendant killed the victim has already been established.
Now, if premium factory ammunition were demonstrably less reliable and effective than hand loads one would have to enter the likelihood and potential consequences of ammunition failure into the equation, but I cannot accept that any reasonable person would actually believe that today.
By the way, I started shooting fifty two years ago and I started hand loading two years later. If memory serves, I have had two center fire rounds fail to fire. Both were WWII military rounds. For all I know, the .38 Spl. FMJ round spent most of the war on a dock. The 6.5X52MM rifle round had the bullet seated in an unsized case via a couple of dimples. The bullet wobbled and the case was essentially unsealed against the elements.
From MP3Mogul:
Yes indeed. That's why I retired a 9MM that only functions reliably with ball ammunition (after reading Mas Ayoob's latest book).
I don't agree that that's the next logical step, but I think most of us will agree wholeheartedly that it's unacceptable!
Great strategy.
The "last resort" will include an investigation and perhaps prosecution.
The jury never saw the evidence--the trial judge refused to admit it. However, it is not the outcome of the Bias case in the trial courts on which a prudent person would bet his record, fortune, and personal freedom. That the appellate courts evidently did not find the trial court judge to have been in error might tend to give one pause, though.
In the case of most kinds of evidence, all evidence that is introduced is to be admitted and weighed by the jury. Scientific forensic evidence and expert testimony is another matter--the trial judge will decide, based on certain criteria, whether that kind of evidence will be admitted in court. I believe that one will almost always see fingerprints, DNA, hair and fiber evidence, mass spec testing data, etc. admitted; to the best of my knowledge one will not see polygraph test results admitted anywhere as evidence in a capital case.
Should GSR become an issue, the trial judge would have to decide on the admissibility as evidence of GSR test data on the ammunition used by the defendant. My lay interpretation of the criteria now set forth for the Federal courts is that handload test data would probably not be admitted. The new Federal precedent would likely not be determinative in a state court, but the principles involved in the Federal precedent could certainly influence the trial court judge's decision--the state would no doubt make the same kind of arguments that influenced the Supreme Court.
One might reasonably assess the likelihood that the refusal of a trial judge to admit ammunition test results might determine the trial outcome as low, unless the lack of GSR evidence on the victim were to weigh heavily. One might reasonably assess the likelihood that the choice of hand loads might influence the jury's assessment of the defendant's state of mind and determine the outcome as very low. That these factors, in combination with other evidence or the lack thereof, might tip the balance in the minds of the jury cannot be reasonably argued, however. And when assessing risks, likelihood must be considered in combination with the potential consequences, which in this discussion include conviction for murder in a case in which the fact that the defendant killed the victim has already been established.
Now, if premium factory ammunition were demonstrably less reliable and effective than hand loads one would have to enter the likelihood and potential consequences of ammunition failure into the equation, but I cannot accept that any reasonable person would actually believe that today.
By the way, I started shooting fifty two years ago and I started hand loading two years later. If memory serves, I have had two center fire rounds fail to fire. Both were WWII military rounds. For all I know, the .38 Spl. FMJ round spent most of the war on a dock. The 6.5X52MM rifle round had the bullet seated in an unsized case via a couple of dimples. The bullet wobbled and the case was essentially unsealed against the elements.
From MP3Mogul:
Yes indeed. That's why I retired a 9MM that only functions reliably with ball ammunition (after reading Mas Ayoob's latest book).
Last edited:
(in FLorida,,,Maimi...) 
