Whenever the issue of handloads/reloads comes up, almost invariably, issues related to other firearm modifications gets brought up. These are two (largely) unrelated issues. May none of us ever have to face a jury from the defendant's chair, but if any of us do, we won't be able to count on having 12 "gun people" sitting in the jury box. As Sam points out, member GEM has done pretty significant research on what effect weapon appearance has on juries. If I remember GEM's research correctly (& while I think I do, I will invite him to correct me), juries have either a negative reaction (or at least less of a positive reaction) to "evil looking weapons" like the AR, when compared to something blued-and-wood, even when the caliber is the same. (Think AR vs. Mini-14 Ranch Rifle). Another example might be comparing a basic, parkerized GI model 1911 to a 1911 with death's-head grips. The prosecutor (or plaintiff's attorney, in the civil case) may not need to say a thing about it. The jury will get to see the pistol and can draw its own conclusions. That's the same problem with ammo like "R.I.P. Ammo," from the makers of "D.R.T. . . . " Were I plaintiff's lawyer suing an alleged SD shooter, I could make some hay with a picture of that Extreme Shock ammo. I'd have a much harder time getting the jury riled up with something like Speer Gold Dots or Remington Golden Sabers.
That, however, is a distinctly different legal problem from handloads. The issue laid out above is one of jury perception. The handloads problem is an evidentiary one. If I'm ever in an SD shooting using handloads and subsequently charged or sued (God forbid), the jury may not ever get to hear the GSR expert that I would like to have testify on my behalf, because the basis for the expert's conclusions would have to be drawn from the defendant's (my) own reloading records.
Appellate cases. . . . The other aspect that seems to come up a lot in these discussions is the "show me the cases" argument. Mind you, given the Information Age in which we live, that's not an entirely unreasonble argument. However, IMNSHO, it partially rests on a flawed idea. Looking for a story reported on the internet is one thing, but if we're talking about finding reported cases that offer some guidance, it's important to understand a little bit about lawyers and the reporting system for cases. A large part of what we (lawyers) do is predictive in nature. Were I to get a case that is identical in every regards (save the parties' names) to a case already decided by SCOTUS, that case is a slam dunk, either for me or against me. That doesn't happen. The case presented to the lawyer will differ in some ways (some minor, some major) to the cases that are already out there. The lawyer's job is then to look at cases similar to "the one at bar" and then try to predict what will happen if the one on his desk goes to trial.
Now, when trying to make these predictions, we (again, lawyers) have to look at: (a) black-letter law (statutes, regulations, etc.); and (b) caselaw. The former is pretty self-explanatory. The latter, though, involves looking at the reported cases of precedential value. Not every case is prosecuted or tried. Of those, not ever case is appealed. Of those that are appealed, not every one results in a published decision. Of those that result in published opinions, not every one results in a discussion of the issues that I need discussed . . . .
With all of that said, if the only thing we need is an internet article on a case where ammo or handloads became an issue, googling Harold Fish or Daniel Bias ought to turn something up. OTOH, if what we're looking for is an appellate court decision that offers some guidance on whether the testimony of a GSR expert, working from the defendant's reloading records, is admissible in court, here's a brief outline of all the things that have to happen before we will be able to find it:
It is a very particular "constellation of events" that could lead to handloads presenting a problem, which means that the odds of handloads presenting a problem in any particular case are pretty slim. In order for them to present a problem, at least steps 1-5 (above) have to come into play. Nonetheless, if that problem does come into play, the stakes are very, very high.
That, however, is a distinctly different legal problem from handloads. The issue laid out above is one of jury perception. The handloads problem is an evidentiary one. If I'm ever in an SD shooting using handloads and subsequently charged or sued (God forbid), the jury may not ever get to hear the GSR expert that I would like to have testify on my behalf, because the basis for the expert's conclusions would have to be drawn from the defendant's (my) own reloading records.
Appellate cases. . . . The other aspect that seems to come up a lot in these discussions is the "show me the cases" argument. Mind you, given the Information Age in which we live, that's not an entirely unreasonble argument. However, IMNSHO, it partially rests on a flawed idea. Looking for a story reported on the internet is one thing, but if we're talking about finding reported cases that offer some guidance, it's important to understand a little bit about lawyers and the reporting system for cases. A large part of what we (lawyers) do is predictive in nature. Were I to get a case that is identical in every regards (save the parties' names) to a case already decided by SCOTUS, that case is a slam dunk, either for me or against me. That doesn't happen. The case presented to the lawyer will differ in some ways (some minor, some major) to the cases that are already out there. The lawyer's job is then to look at cases similar to "the one at bar" and then try to predict what will happen if the one on his desk goes to trial.
Now, when trying to make these predictions, we (again, lawyers) have to look at: (a) black-letter law (statutes, regulations, etc.); and (b) caselaw. The former is pretty self-explanatory. The latter, though, involves looking at the reported cases of precedential value. Not every case is prosecuted or tried. Of those, not ever case is appealed. Of those that are appealed, not every one results in a published decision. Of those that result in published opinions, not every one results in a discussion of the issues that I need discussed . . . .
With all of that said, if the only thing we need is an internet article on a case where ammo or handloads became an issue, googling Harold Fish or Daniel Bias ought to turn something up. OTOH, if what we're looking for is an appellate court decision that offers some guidance on whether the testimony of a GSR expert, working from the defendant's reloading records, is admissible in court, here's a brief outline of all the things that have to happen before we will be able to find it:
- There has to be a shooting;
- The shooter has to have used handloads or reloads in the shooting;
- The shooter must be prosecuted or sued civilly;
- There must be a difference of opinion on the distance at which the shooting occurred;
- That difference of opinion must be subject to resolution by GSR evidence;
- The defendant has to have a GSR expert to testify (the Crime Lab guys will be testifying on behalf of the State);
- The defendant's GSR expert has to use the defendant's own reloading records as a basis for his opinion;
- The State (or the plaintiff's lawyer) has to object to the admission of the expert's testimony;
- The decision of the court on the issue of the admissibility of the GSR expert's testimony has to be appealed (more often that not, this will mean that the evidence is excluded and the defendant appeals);
- The appellate court has to issue a ruling and an opinion on the issue of the admissibility of the GSR expert's testimony; and
- The appellate court has to publish the decision in some way that allows us to find and read it.
It is a very particular "constellation of events" that could lead to handloads presenting a problem, which means that the odds of handloads presenting a problem in any particular case are pretty slim. In order for them to present a problem, at least steps 1-5 (above) have to come into play. Nonetheless, if that problem does come into play, the stakes are very, very high.
