Do you carry handloads or factory ammo?
- Thread starter Super Sneaky Steve
- Start date
- Status
Tony_the_tiger
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 905
Put the round next to your ear and shake it up and down. With Corbon loads, you can hear the powder. With some Speer/CCI loads, you can't. That freaked me out a little, another +1 for Corbon
Having the read firearms-related portion of the premier forensic investigation textbooks in existence (and in particular, the section on gunshot residue as evidence), and having taken a law course in the relevant parts of the Federal Rules of Evidence (adopted by most of our states) and having applied those rules in a corporate context, I really should not have needed Ayoob's opinions on this subject at all. Nor should I have needed an explanation from fiddletown, or a real-world account concerning an actual case from Marty Hayes.
However, I am confident that all of the above substantiate my conclusions on this subject beyond doubt.
I do not practice law, nor do I claim to have "credentials" in that area.
I do, however, have a pretty good understanding of some areas of the law, having designed a number of the legal compliance mechanisms for a major corporation.
Quite obviously, those all required the proper review by attorneys, which in some cases included Chief Counsels and nationally known outside legal experts.
Similarly, all of the Stickies that I have posted in the ST&T forum have been reviewed by attorneys. I can assure you that my conclusions on the subject we have been discussing in this thread are rock solid.
What is your point?
You have claimed on many,many occasions, during this thread and others, to have explained exactly how the legal system works in regards to how a person can run into problems in court using reloads. Maybe you should leave that to qualified criminal/trial lawyers.
Rubbing elbows with attorneys while making sure a gadget meets certain requrements does not qualify you to give "sound legal advice".
Even if you were qualified I would still consider your stance to be speculative since you (or anyone else) hasn't given a single example of anyone in a self-defence shooting having legal issues with reloads.
Of course you have no qualifications whatsoever and simply refuse to understand that legal principles applied in one type of case would apply in the exact same way in other types of cases. The evidentiary principles that made handloads problematic for Daniel Bias will apply in any other type of case.357 Terms said:
Perhaps you would care to bring to our attention any case, of any type, in which a defendant was allowed to have admitted into evidence exculpatory expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing when the defendant's handloads were involved.
No. I have explained how legal precedence works, and I do understand it very well. I have explained how the rules of admissibility of forensic scientific trace evidence applies to this discussion, and I have some understanding of that subject also, gained from actual experience (the engineering degree helps also). I have explained how GSR test results may under some circumstances be helpful in a defense of justification; my knowledge of that subject comes from resources that are available to you also, should you choose to look into the subject yourself.
I won't, but the same advice comes from attorneys who are experienced in the rather limited field of defending the self defense case and of the rather esoteric part of the rules of evidence that is relevant, which you seem determined to ignore.
Sorry, by "compliance mechanisms", I meant processes, procedures, and systems, including systems of internal controls. I will not be more specific because it might reveal my identity.
I will caution you in a friendly way here about getting personal.
By the way, nothing posted on this, or any other Internet site, constitues legal advice. That's something you usually have to pay for, and you will want to receive it under attorney/client privilege from your attorney.
You have been making that statement repeatedly throughout much of 2011. To be fair, I can understand how someone who is not knowledgable of the principles of legal precedence, of forensic evidence, and of the applicable rules of evidence might make an argument on that basis--the first time. However, the flaw in that argument has been explained repeatedly, thoroughly, and painstakingly, in different ways, by different people, over and over again. One has to conclude either that you cannot comprehend the concepts, or that you are simply choosing to be argumentative for the sake of argument. If it is the latter, that's not a good way to get along on THR. If it is the former, it is clear that we cannot help you. I suggest that you contact an attorney. Before doing so, read the sticky to find out what qualifications are required and what questions to ask.
You have, however, been given an example of a case in which GSR evidence that was admitted led to an acquittal. Your continued refusal to accept the converse--that the inability to introduce the evidence would have led to a conviction--leads me to believe that you are just being argumentative. To my knowledge, I have never met a functional adult who could not understand that quite easily.
You have a decision to make.
Perhaps you would care to bring to our attention any case, of any type, in which a defendant was allowed to have admitted into evidence exculpatory expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing when the defendant's handloads were involved. [/QUOTE]
All you have is Bias?
Did the prosecution claim he used reloads?
Wasn't it his claim that his wife was shot with a mild load?
I wont have such worries with my SD loads and GSR , they will leave thier mark!
All you have is Bias?
Did the prosecution claim he used reloads?
Wasn't it his claim that his wife was shot with a mild load?
I wont have such worries with my SD loads and GSR , they will leave thier mark!
Any and all personal info given in this thread was provided by the individuals themselves, I have been totally upfront about my qualifications (or lack of).
Are you talking about insults? if so I don't feel that I have done that or even bordered on it. I like to think that I have tried to take the high road.
All you have is nothing at all.
Would't load data be admissible if the prosecution admitted or even brought up the fact that reloads were used?
Would a judge allow them to use the fact that reloaded ammunition was used and NOT allow expert testimony as to load data?
Would a judge allow them to use the fact that reloaded ammunition was used and NOT allow expert testimony as to load data?
It would depend on why, how and for what purpose.357 Terms said:
Again it depends on why, how and for what purpose.357 Terms said:
But if there's a question of the distance at which a shot was fired in the event that is the subject matter of the trial expert testimony based on test results would be required. Such testimony was not admitted in Bias to help support Bias' defense, because handloads were involved. Such testimony was admitted in Willems to support Randy Willems' defense because commercial ammunition was involved.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,111
But isn't it true that it wasn't because handloads were involved, but because the handloads in question were loaded at various powder charges and that it could not be determined what powder charge propelled the fatal bullet that the GSR was not valid?
I have looked at the Daniel Bias case many different times and from different perspectives. IMHO, someone got away with murder.
Not really. Testing by the defense of even the heaviest of those loads showed results consistent with Bias's story.buck460XVR said:
He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison. But that's still beside the point.buck460XVR said:
The issue for us is still the inadmissibility of expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing when handloads were used. If GSR test results had been inadmissible in Randy Willems' trial, a police officer who shot in justified self defense might have gone to prison.
Not really. The prosecution charged Bias because the were certain that he executed his wife, thats the reason there was a trial.
I don't think a DA would look at a SD shooting in the same light.
Either way unlike Bias the reloads most of us would use would leave GSR consistent with most factory loads, there would be GSR, a judge would not allow that to be suppressed, its phsysical evidence.
If I recall Willems was able to show how close he was by the amount of GSR? am I right?
If it is also present in reloads why wouldn't the data be admissilbe?
If the DA believes that the shooting involved self defense, the case will not go to court.
That's a good qustion. I'll try to address it clearly.
A finding that GSR was or was not detected on a person who has been shot is admissible; such evidence (the presence or lack of GSR on the victim) will have been gathered by the police investigators, and if there is reason to do so, it will be introduced by the state, along with whatever conclusions the prosecution might like to infer from the evidence.
That's what happened in the Bias case, not that it affects anything here. The investigators initially believed that Mrs. Bias committed suicide, but they decided differently when tests of factory loaded cartridges of the same type showed GSR would surely have been present on the victim had the shot been fired within arm's length.
The issue arises when and if (1) the ammunition used by the defendant would not have deposited GSR on a victim at the distance the prosecution's witnesses claim the shooting occurred, when GSR was in fact detected on the victim, or (2) the pattern that the defendant's ammunition would have made at the distance claimed by witnesses differs from markedly what was observed and the prosecution draws an erroneous conclusion from the SR pattern on the victim.
In such cases, the defendant would be well served by having an expert introduce the results of testing of the ammunition actually used.
That's where the rules of evidence we have been discussing enter the picture.
If the defendant who wanted to introduce such test results had used factory ammunition, and if the prosecution were to challenge the results of the defendant's testing were not reliable indicators of the ammunition used, the defendant's attorneys could subpoena the representatives and records of the manufacturer, who would then show how the in-process manufacturing data and lot acceptance test data for the ammunition in question had been prepared, used, and maintained in accordance with ISO standards and had been maintained and safeguarded by independent custodians in secure conditions. The challenge would fail. For that reason, data from factory loads are unlikely to be challenged by the prosecution. Whether or not there is a challenge, the data will be admitted as evidence.
The key words here are maintained and safeguarded by independent custodians in secure conditions. If the records pertaining to the exemplar ammunition used in the defendant's testing had not been maintained where they could have been tampered with, and particularly if they had been at any time in the control of someone with a possible motive to do so (such as the defendant in a murder case), the test results would not be admissible under the the rules of evidence.
I hope that answers the question adequately.
What it boils down to after that is a matter of judgement. One may conclude that it is very unlikely that a case will ever hinge upon the admissibility of test data. That's probably true, most of the time. But if it does, the effect on the outcome could be severe. It costs very little to mitigate that risk.
For that reason, I carry factory ammunition. I will say that if I had embarked on a camping trip and remembered later that I had inadvertently brought along only handloads, I would most probably not turn around to go home to get factory loads or take an lengthy detour to try to find some.
The name of the game is risk management.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Just a...wee...correction.
Fish was convicted in large part because he used hollowpoint ammunition...not because of the caliber. One juror was polled, and she responded that she was fairly well convinced that he acted lawfully, but his choice of such lethal ammunition was the factor that prompted her to vote guilty. So, yes. Ammunition can cause you some trouble.
And...Fiddletown's credentials are well-known and accepted here.
You may draw your own conclusions.
Carry on, ladies and laddies.
piratelooking@40
Member
Poll choices are silly.
Factory only in my carry guns.
Factory only in my carry guns.
You don't understand. Kleanbore has it exactly right. You wouldn't be on trial if the DA thought you shot in justified self defense.357 Terms said:
You might be claiming self defense, but if you're on trial, the DA didn't buy it. The DA (or grand jury) has charged you with murder or manslaughter (if whoever you shot died) or with aggravated assault or something similar (if whoever you shot didn't die). To the DA, if you're on trial it's not a self defense case; it's murder (or manslaughter or aggravated assault).
It's not just a matter of the mere presence of GSR. It's a question of what the prosecutor or the defense wants the jury to be able to infer from the GSR. And that will usually require expert opinion testimony about what the GSR means.357 Terms said:
The point is how he showed it. In order to show that sort of thing in the formal process of a trial, it's not just a matter of Willems saying, "Look at the GSR. That shows I shot the guy from 18 inches." In a trial, that sort of information, and that sort of data, may be put in front of a jury only in the way I described in detail in post 41.357 Terms said:
Someone who can qualify as an expert must conduct tests in a manner accepted as scientifically valid. The tests must be conducted using ammunition that can be shown to the satisfaction of the court is substantially identical to the ammunition fired in the event. And the expert then testifies that based on that testing, in his or her professional opinion the shot or shot(s) in the event were fired at a distance of X from the person shot.
But if handloads were used, the court will not be able to be satisfied that the ammunition tested was substantially identical to the round fired in the event. Because of that, the opinion of the expert will not be allowed into evidence, and the jury will never hear it.
wildcatter109
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 81
Don't make it difficult
I use a real CCW a 1911, it has been used in larger numbers, by more people, "complete military's" and consumed more factory rounds, than any other round in history. I have never heard one of our Vet's complain about a cartridge not having powder in it, or ask for reloads!! Most if they were issued something else supplied there own. I don't use ball ammo in mine, I don't have to worry about the Goneva convention?? But I use Winchester Ranger Law Enforcement ammo, tested constantly by the FBI lab, as they use it too. If it ever had a bad load, let alone batch, I would know the word would be out. The other thing we hand loaders have to remember is, No Way can we Test or measure the specs for consistency and performance, as well as a government agency or millitary! They have much more than a scale and a chronograph!! I wont use hunting ammo in my handguns unless I make it, but nobody test haunting ammo to the extent the agencies relying on SF ammo does!
Winchester Ranger T-Series Bonded, 230 grain non +P, bad news for the bad guy's!!
I use a real CCW a 1911, it has been used in larger numbers, by more people, "complete military's" and consumed more factory rounds, than any other round in history. I have never heard one of our Vet's complain about a cartridge not having powder in it, or ask for reloads!! Most if they were issued something else supplied there own. I don't use ball ammo in mine, I don't have to worry about the Goneva convention?? But I use Winchester Ranger Law Enforcement ammo, tested constantly by the FBI lab, as they use it too. If it ever had a bad load, let alone batch, I would know the word would be out. The other thing we hand loaders have to remember is, No Way can we Test or measure the specs for consistency and performance, as well as a government agency or millitary! They have much more than a scale and a chronograph!! I wont use hunting ammo in my handguns unless I make it, but nobody test haunting ammo to the extent the agencies relying on SF ammo does!
Winchester Ranger T-Series Bonded, 230 grain non +P, bad news for the bad guy's!!
- Status
