Why JHP?

[BullfrogKen]

I'll respond shortly . . .

 

[LiveLife]

Wow, I had to double check to see if I was in Social Situations/Strategies, Tactics & Training category or Gear and Ammunition/Handloading & Reloading category of THR.


Since this is Handloading and Reloading, can I make a request in thread discussion focus shift that may help many reading this thread in this category? Thank you all in advance.


OP posted:

I've noticed that it seems to be heavily advised to only carry factory ammo to ensures legal safety.

For me and perhaps for many others, the question was not whether it was better to use factory ammunition for "defensive ammo" (If this was the question, the answer of course would have been an adamant YES), but whether the use of factory ammunition ensured legal safety.

My reply post focused on this aspect of OP's questions. And the answer to this question is NO. The use of factory ammunition DOES NOT ensure legal safety if the shooting was not justifiable according to local laws where the shooting took place and I thus quoted California's penal code sections that defined "justifiable shooting" as an example.

I am not a lawyer, just a lay person. And for me, the New Jersey v Bias court case in discussion dealt with not whether the shooting was justifiable in self-defense but whether the shooting was a suicide, an accident or murder (simply, husband shot wife or wife shot herself). Even if factory ammunition was used to better determine GSR data, it would not have changed the nature of the case which was not a justifiable self-defense shooting situation. And I believe the OP's questions had to do with defensive justifiable shooting and not with commiting crime and formulating an effective defense strategy.


There have been many recent shootings locally and on national level where they were deemed as justifiable shootings and DA decided not to press charges. For these defensive shooting situations, even THR members fiddletown and Mr. Ayoob would have to agree that the use of any available ammunition (whether factory or handloads/reloads) would be appropritate for self-defense.

Example #1:
Teen mother shoots intruder in defense of herself and baby - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04/teen-mom-shoots-kills-intruder-with-11-dispatcher-on-phone/

DA response - "Oklahoma law allows the use of deadly force against intruders, and prosecutors said [shooter] clearly acted in self-defense ... [Intruder] was holding a knife when he died ... initial review of the case doesn't indicate she violated the law in any way ... However, prosecutors have charged his alleged accomplice, 29-year-old Dustin Louis Stewart, with first-degree murder. According to authorities, Stewart was with Martin but ran away from McKinley's home after hearing the gunshots ... When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for it."


Example #2:
Teen shoots intruder in defense of himself and sister - http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10553140/

DA response - "No charges are expected against the teen for firing on Henderson. North Carolina's Castle Doctrine law, updated on Dec. 1, allows homeowners to assume intruders mean them ill whether they have a weapon on not."


Of course I endorse the use of factory ammunition for defensive ammunition and especially if you plan on violating the law of the land, you better buy some factory ammuntion before you commit your crime. But that should not mean to say that when we are faced with potential/actual threat(s), we need to run back to the bedroom closet from the reloading room so we can use factory ammunition when we have reloaded target loads (or any reloads) on the bench right in front of us.

Maybe it's just me, but the way I see it, more and more time and effort seem to be spent on making law abiding citizens conform to endless and difficult to understand laws to protect them when the laws should be CHANGED AND REWRITTEN to better protect law abiding citizens from criminals. Then these endless discussion threads would not be necessary and we would just focus on handloading and reloading more accurate ammunition and training methods so as to not miss our targets when we are protecting ourselves and family.

Thank you all, specifically Ken for providing me some valuable information I have been looking for.

I have been a long-time reader of Massad Ayoob's writings and respect/applaud him for contributions he has made over the past decades and participating on THR. Incidentally, March 2012 edition of Combat Handguns magazine has a very timely article titled, "Self-Defense & The Law/When Justifiable Shots Can Kill You/Building An Impenetrable Defense" by who else, Massad Ayoob that I found beneficial in clarifying what I should/should not do.

 

[GLOOB]

So, given the fact that my SD loads are the same as my practice/target loads that is just cheap lead bullets made from wheelweights, am I more liable to be grilled or somehow held to a higher standard because I used these rather than some exotic, factory loaded hollowpoint "self-defense" load? Seems bass-ackwards to me.
Not trying to start an argument here, just curious and a little bewildered...

The potential prejudice of a jury is only one part of the argument. The factor being predominantly discussed in this thread is the point of whether or not any potential exhonorating evidence is likely to be disallowed by the judge if handloads are used, namely GSR testing or ballistics.

It has already been established that handloaded ammunition can be tested and admitted in court. The issue is that the judge may accept only the biased testing of the prosecution and disallow testing done by the defendent. The cause of this concern seems to be largely centered around some of the decisions in the Bias case.

 

[LiveLife]

For the benefit of many, I think we should clarify that some of the discussion content only applies IF you commit a crime and are charged by the DA and need a better/more effective defense strategy.

I believe the OP's questions had to do with "defensive" shooting. If you allow yourself and engage yourself in non-justifiable shooting, then you will be in trouble for breaking the law. Hence why we should educate/familiarize ourselves to the applicable local/state/federal laws concerning gun ownership/proper use and not violate them.

Does anyone load their own defensive ammo? ... So why are so many excellent self-defense JHP bullets available?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Okay Sam, I'm back. Let's get to your questions.

So if you're trying to use the data your expert gathers, but it doesn't prove to back you up (not necessarily the same thing as damning you) you do not have to submit that finding in court. Got that. However, if the prosecution conducts those tests because they need (want, or plan to use) GSR evidence to strengthen their case, but their testing does not support their assertions, may they suppress or hold back that finding, or must they submit those findings anyway -- or at least answer affirmatively under cross-examination?...

[1] There is a general rule known as the attorney work-product doctrine. This says that an attorney's work-product is confidential and not discoverable (i. e., it need not be given to the other party in response to a discovery request).

[2] Work-product is generally the attorney's files, notes, drafts, mental impressions or thoughts, etc., i. e., anything he creates or prepares for his use in connection with his representation of a client in a matter.

[3] Work-product also includes anything prepared or created at his direction for his use by investigators, experts, consultants or other third parties.

[4] So if I engage an investigator, his thoughts, impressions, discussions with me, reports, etc., are all confidential and protected by the work-product doctrine. If I engage an expert to do tests, the same sort of array of things is protected.

[5] But the protection ends if I plan to use any such material as evidence. So if I'm going to put the expert on the witness stand, the expert's reports and notes are discoverable; and in a civil case the expert must be made available for deposition.

[6] Work-product protection is completely symmetrical in a civil case. The plaintiff's lawyer's work-product has the same protection as the defendant's lawyer's work product.

[7] It's not quite symmetrical in a criminal case. The defendant's lawyer's work-product is fully protected. And things like the prosecutor's notes, mental impressions, etc., are also protected.

[8] But in a criminal case, the Supreme Court has ruled that, "...it violates constitutional due process for the prosecution to suppress evidence favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment when there has been a defense request for such information...." So in general, in a criminal case, the defense has a right to get from the prosecution, "...information in possession of the prosecution and/or its agents when such information is favorable to the accused...." There are differing rules in different jurisdictions regarding whether or when the information must be requested by the defense or must be produced by the prosecution on its initiative.

[9] How the information is used by the defense depends on what it is and the circumstances. Sometime it will serve as the basis of some kind of motion limiting evidence, or dismissing charges. Sometimes it can be used to help attack on cross examination a prosecution witness. And sometimes it can lead to the offering of a witness/evidence by the defense.

That's all bit wordy and perhaps convoluted, but does it help with the first question?

Or are you saying that the judge would accept their inclusion of data from your handloads, but would not accept your inclusion of the same kind of data?

If the same sort of foundation was needed for the introduction of the information as evidence, then yes, it would cut both ways. If you go back to post 58 and the quotes from the Ayoob article on Bias you can note that in the second trial Bias was able to challenge the prosecution GSR evidence. And he couldn't get his own in.

It really boils down to a question of relevance. If my case involves the amount of force necessary to bend a steel bar, testing to find out how much force is needed to bend an aluminum bar is irrelevant. Such tests would have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Of course keeping out prosecution evidence will require that the defense first object. It's possible that the defense would not object because the particular evidence wasn't harmful, and could even be helpful. For example, from Harold Fish's appeal brief:

...The state’s firearms expert, Lucien Haag was unable to refute Fish’s account of the shooting, including the fact that Kuenzli was 5-8 feet away. [R.T. 5/02/06 , 202-203]. Haag also testified that the number of bullets in the gun, the bullet found at the scene, the placement of the ejected casings, the angle of the entry wounds were all consistent with Fish’s account. [R.T. 5/02/06 , 219; 222-223; 235]. Haag confirmed that Kuenzli, if running, would have been upon Fish is less than one second. [R.T. 5/02/06 , 223-224]...

...for me, the New Jersey v Bias court case in discussion dealt with not whether the shooting was justifiable in self-defense but whether the shooting was a suicide, an accident or murder (simply, husband shot wife or wife shot herself). Even if factory ammunition was used to better determine GSR data, it would not have changed the nature of the case which was not a justifiable self-defense shooting situation....

As has been said many times, the rules of evidence are the same, and apply the same, no matter what type of case.

...There have been many recent shootings locally and on national level where they were deemed as justifiable shootings and DA decided not to press charges. For these defensive shooting situations, even THR members fiddletown and Mr. Ayoob would have to agree that the use of any available ammunition (whether factory or handloads/reloads) would be appropritate for self-defense....

If after the event everyone agrees that your use of lethal force was justified, what you used doesn't matter. But if there's a disagreement on the point and you will need to establish that your use of lethal force was justified, if could matter. (see the stories of Larry Hickey, et al, in post 78). But you can't know ahead of time whether your bad day will be easy or hard to establish as justified self defense.

...I believe the OP's questions had to do with "defensive" shooting. If you allow yourself and engage yourself in non-justifiable shooting, then you are in trouble for breaking the law. Hence why we should educate/familiarize ourselves to the applicable local/state/federal laws concerning gun ownership/proper use and not violate them...

But establishing that you shot in self defense could be simple or it could be very hard and expensive. Again, see post 78.

 

[Sam1911]

I think we should clarify that some of the discussion content only applies IF you commit a crime and are charged by the DA and need a better/more effective defense strategy.

bds, I don't think this is correct. In the case of Bias, the jury found that he was guilty. But the principle that fiddletown and Mas are putting forth flows this way:

a) You may have what you know to be a legitimate self-defense shooting, but which the evidence immediately visible leads investigators and prosecutors to charge as unlawful; and,

b) Your affirmative defense against the murder charge hinges on something that you feel you can prove through Gun Shot Residue (GSR) testing/sampling and comparison with that recovered (hopefully) at the scene of the event; and,

c) You will have your own expert(s) perform GSR testing using your ammo, or ammo recreated to be like what you say you used, in order to refute the State's claims against you -- BUT the judge overseeing the case may not allow your expert's findings to be admitted as evidence because of various factors.

Ken's assertion, based on his conversation with a retired crime lab professional is that such evidence would not be impossible to produce in ways that (almost) any court would accept as valid and admissible evidence.

The entire debate here boils down to whether, in the very unfortunate event that you are in a defensive shooting, and in the very very unfortunate event your justification for that shooting is challenged by the DA and you are tried for manslaughter or murder, and in the very, very, very unfortunate event that your own defense turns out to hinge on or be heavily influenced by GSR testing by your experts -- (whew!) -- what likelihood is there that the Court would deem that evidence inadmissible?

So, if I've got it all summed up correctly, that's the question, and it could directly apply to someone who did not commit a crime, but engaged in what we and they would believe to be lawful self-defense.

 

[Sam1911]

That's all bit wordy and perhaps convoluted, but does it help with the first question?

Absolutely, perfectly clear, thanks!

 

[LiveLife]

I think we should clarify that some of the discussion content only applies IF you commit a crime and are charged by the DA and need a better/more effective defense strategy.

I did say "some of the discussion content" ...

< Taking more notes >

This is what I have so far:

1. I endorse the use of factory ammunition for defensive shooting.
2. Use any available ammunition (factory or reloads) to protect your life or lives of your family in "justifiable" shooting situations.
3. If/when possible, use factory ammunition.

 

[Sam1911]

If you go back to post 58 and the quotes from the Ayoob article on Bias you can note that in the second trial Bias was able to challenge the prosecution GSR evidence. And he couldn't get his own in.

I read post 58 again. Was the reason that Bias' attorneys couldn't get his GSR testimony allowed because they'd poisoned the well, so to speak, in regards to the prosecution's use of such? I see that it was not allowed, but I've not yet understood why exactly it was not.

The prosecution in the first trial did something very similar to your iron bar -vs- aluminum bar analogy. That was pretty poor work and doesn't match up, even sorta, to what Ken has shared about proper procedure as outlined by PSP, KSP, DOJ, etc.

In fact, it would appear that a knowledgeable expert for the defense should have been able quite easily to have done a much more thorough and appropriate job of exactly the same testing. Would that not have been admissible under "normal" circumstances? And, if not, on what grounds?

(I remember the general answer to this question, from other conversations where we've touched on this, regarding repeatability and impartiality, etc., but I'm looking here for whether the judge actually spoke to that matter in disallowing it in the Bias case.)

It really boils down to a question of relevance. If my case involves the amount of force necessary to bend a steel bar, testing to find out how much force is needed to bend an aluminum bar is irrelevant. Such tests would have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[LiveLife]

...I believe the OP's questions had to do with "defensive" shooting. If you allow yourself and engage yourself in non-justifiable shooting, then you are in trouble for breaking the law. Hence why we should educate/familiarize ourselves to the applicable local/state/federal laws concerning gun ownership/proper use and not violate them...

But establishing that you shot in self defense could be simple or it could be very hard and expensive.

Thank you. I was hoping you would respond to that comment.

But not all "victims" of crime are fluent in all applicable laws or in the right "frame-of-mind" when they are victimized, especially in a surprise, which many crimes often occur. Would an average jury consider a "reasonable" victim acting to protect themselves/others in a "reasonable" manner? If not, why?

 

[Sam1911]

But not all "victims" of crime are fluent in all applicable laws or in the right "frame-of-mind" when they are victimized, especially in a surprise, which many crimes often occur. Would an average jury consider a "reasonable" victim acting to protect themselves/others in a "reasonable" manner? If not, why?

The jury is going to be educated by the court on what the law actually says. And then by the prosecution and the defense on how closely your actions followed the law, or how badly they deviated from it.

You MAY indeed find that your jury looks at all the evidense and simply "puts themselves in your shoes" and aquits you. But they very well may not, either.

Would an "average" jury consider a "reasonable" victim...in a "reasonable" manner, etc? Well, certainly! As long as we're all reasonable. But who's to say that?

The laws generally do favor a "reasonable man" standard -- what would a normal person in a normal state of mind have been likely to believe or do given the information he had to work with at the time of the shooting?

But all of those "reasonables" are refutable. If the DA doesn't believe it was reasonable, you're going to court. If the jury doesn't believe it was reasonable, you're going to jail.

 

[Frank Ettin]

But not all "victims" of crime are fluent in all applicable laws or in the right "frame-of-mind" when they are victimized, especially in a surprise, in the manner many crimes often occur. Would an average jury consider a "reasonable" victim acting to protect themselves/others in a "reasonable" manner? If not, why?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. So let me see if it would help to go back to first principles.

[1] Our society frowns on one person intentionally hurting or killing another. It is generally a crime to do so.

[2] If you have intentionally hurt of killed another person (even if you will be claiming that you did so in self defense), you have prima facie (on the face of things) committed the elements of a crime. You have intentionally hurt or killed another human.

[3] Your act will initially be treated as a criminal act. It will be investigated as a crime. Evidence, both physical and witness (including any statement you give) will be collected and considered.

[4] Now our laws do recognize that there are circumstances in which it is justified to intentionally hurt or kill another. And the law defines certain elements that will need to be present for your act of violence to be found to be justified. Justification is a defense to the crime, so it is established that you were justified under the applicable legal standards, you will be exonerated of any criminal liability.

[5] The exact standards vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But in general, if the evidence shows that a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you knew would have concluded that lethal force was necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable immediate death or grave bodily injury to an innocent.

[6] If as a result of the investigation, the prosecutor concludes the the evidence he has shows that you met the legal standard for justification, you will not be prosecuted. But if that's not the case, you will be prosecuted.

[7] It may well be that you were justified, but the evidence didn't establish that. Now you will have to put on evidence establishing that you did meet the legal standard. The legal standard is a "reasonable person" standard, and if the jury agrees, you go home. If the jury does not agree, you will go to jail.

...The laws generally do favor a "reasonable man" standard -- what would a normal person in a normal state of mind have been likely to believe or do given the information he had to work with at the time of the shooting?

But all of those "reasonables" are refutable. If the DA doesn't believe it was reasonable, you're going to court. If the jury doesn't believe it was reasonable, you're going to jail

And that's it in a nutshell.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I read post 58 again. Was the reason that Bias' attorneys couldn't get his GSR testimony allowed because they'd poisoned the well, so to speak, in regards to the prosecution's use of such? I see that it was not allowed, but I've not yet understood why exactly it was not.

The prosecution in the first trial did something very similar to your iron bar -vs- aluminum bar analogy...

Well there's a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" element, certainly. But the reason apparently given by the judge for not letting the defense GSR in was the inability to establish the nexus between what was tested and the death round. And that also the reason the prosecution evidence was bad with an overlay of lousy evidence collection procedures.

Not all crime labs exactly always work like they're supposed to. Remember that at one time the FBI lab came under a lot of criticism.

And there can be a lot of moving parts to the process of collecting, testing, opining on and getting into evidence scientific analysis of physical evidence. The examiners could do perfect work, and a glitch in the collection procedures or preserving the chain of custody can make the information useless as evidence. I heard from the criminalist in our local PD that a lot of good evidence in the OJ case couldn't be used because of sloppy collection procedures.

 

[LiveLife]

Not all crime labs exactly always work like they're supposed to.

And there can be a lot of moving parts to the process of collecting, testing, opining on and getting into evidence scientific analysis of physical evidence. The examiners could do perfect work, and a glitch in the collection procedures or preserving the chain of custody can make the information useless as evidence.

When I was summoned to serve on a jury for a robbery case, the DA made sure the jury understood the "real life" police investigation and evidence collection/processing was not as "perfect" as CSI shows on TV and asked us to lower our standards of expectations. When the DA heard I was victim of three burglaries and one close call home invasion robbery that her PD investigated, I was released.

We now have three guard dogs.

 

[357 Terms]

Sam1911

The entire debate here boils down to whether, in the very unfortunate event that you are in a defensive shooting, and in the very very unfortunate event your justification for that shooting is challenged by the DA and you are tried for manslaughter or murder, and in the very, very, very unfortunate event that your own defense turns out to hinge on or be heavily influenced by GSR testing by your experts -- (whew!) -- what likelihood is there that the Court would deem that evidence inadmissible?

Exactly!

There is soooo much speculation regarding admissible GSR evidence.

In terms of citing Bias, the state of New Jersey was (in their mind, and many others) prosecuting a man they assumed executed his wife, and very well may have. Not to mention his "light reloads" would not mimick anyones SD reloads.

I still am not convinced that if Willems had been carrying handloads that his trial would have turned out any different.

No one, No one! has produced any case in which a person in a SD shooting has had ANY legal repercusions involving reloads.

Speculation and opinion.

Speculation and opinion.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I still am not convinced that if Willems had been carrying handloads that his trial would have turned out any different...

Then see this statement of another lawyer in this post on TFL:

...I'm a lawyer and I'm licensed in the Arkansas state courts, federal courts, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I've done enough research on this issue to feel confident in my position on it. If I had to prosecute a shooting case with a handloader, I have absolutely no doubt but that I could get expert testimony based on a reload excluded....

...opinion...

Professional opinion based on years of training, study and experience. The opinion of my doctor regarding my health needs to be taken seriously. The opinion of my mechanic on my health does not. Not all opinions are equal.

 

[357 Terms]

but I've been unable to find any cases in which the handloader's stuff was found to be admissible.

fiddletown-

That is the last quote of that post you just linked.

Do you agree?

That is that no handloaders "stuff" was admissible?

 

[357 Terms]

Spats McGee

If I had to prosecute a shooting case with a handloader

"If" so I can assume mr.McGee never knew of a SD shooting involving reloads? or at least was never involved with one professionally?

So his experience is about as equal as my mechanic.

 

[Frank Ettin]

but I've been unable to find any cases in which the handloader's stuff was found to be admissible.

...That is the last quote of that post you just linked.

Do you agree?...

[1] That statement of course arises in the context of a discussion of the admissibility of defense expert opinion testimony, based on exemplar GSR testing, about the distance at which a shot was fired.

[2] Spats is an able, qualified and experienced lawyer, and I trust his research skills.

If I had to prosecute a shooting case with a handloader

If" so I can assume mr.McGee never knew of a SD shooting involving reloads? or at least was never involved with one professionally?

So his experience is about as equal as my mechanic.

Is your mechanic licensed to practice law in the Arkansas state courts, federal courts, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court? If not, I'd say that your mechanic is unqualified to render an opinion on the subject. And no, Spats McGee is far more experienced as a lawyer and far more qualified to opine on legal matters than your mechanic.

 

[357 Terms]

And no, Spats McGee is far more experienced as a lawyer and far more qualified to opine on legal matters than your mechanic.

I don't doubt that, but by his own admission he has no personal or professional experience involving reloads and a SD shooting.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And no, Spats McGee is far more experienced as a lawyer and far more qualified to opine on legal matters than your mechanic.

I don't doubt that, but by his own admission he has no personal or professional experience involving reloads and a SD shooting.

Which for these purposes doesn't matter at all. An able and experienced lawyer, like Spat McGee who has, I know, experience as both a prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer is qualified to deal with a wide range of matters, even those of a type he has not previously dealt with.

 

[357 Terms]

ME

I still am not convinced that if Willems had been carrying handloads that his trial would have turned out any different.

Not sure why you quoted another lawyer in response to that quote of mine?
Especially when it doesn't apply.

 

[357 Terms]

BullfrogKen-

If hand loaded ammunition was used, in order to replicate ammunition as similar as possible to the evidence, the lab may load it and use it for testing

fiddletown-

It seems that THAT kind of experience is more, lets say "real world" than any you have posted.

 

[GLOOB]

...I'm a lawyer and I'm licensed in the Arkansas state courts, federal courts, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I've done enough research on this issue to feel confident in my position on it. If I had to prosecute a shooting case with a handloader, I have absolutely no doubt but that I could get expert testimony based on a reload excluded....

So my question is this. Claimant states he was at least 30 feet away and running away when he was shot in the back. There are contact type burn marks on the front of the guy's shirt and in the wound, which is located over his navel. Both agree he was shot with a 9mm handgun, not a flamethrower. The defendent was using handloads.

So this lawyer thinks that he could essentially keep this information hidden from a jury, completely? Or would this hypothetical case be one where handloads make no difference? I'm dying to know.

IOW, does not GSR constitute important and admissible evidence in many (not all) cases without the need for exemplar testing? Or are all the nonlawyers here crazy stupid?

 

[BullfrogKen]

An excellent discussion of how a modern and efficient crime lab works, but actually not directly on point.

Actually, it was directly on point. You made some clear, broad statements about how evidence ammunition is treated, and what manner of testing that is done, or not done with it. I produced material that disputed it.

You also made points about the impossibility or uncertainty of determining proximity with a firearm without the specific, even exactly similar, ammunition. I produced lab procedures from a highly reputable source of which clearly shows that even in the absence of the gun itself, some general conclusions are possible about the nature of the GSR and proximity. The possession of merely the gun itself in GSR testing allows an expert to draw conclusions about proximity with even greater confidence.

The matter of determining proximity using GSR evidence has been around for many decades. Either it will show proximity, or it won’t. GSR only travels so far. Having the gun in evidence helps the state lab narrow the range down. Having evidence ammunition helps narrow the range down even more. If the evidence ammunition is reloads, the lab will use some of those rounds if enough exist, or they will manufacture ones that will replicate it.

The information will exist. The state will have it. Subpoena it.

The role of the crime lab and the examiners that work there is to conduct a scientific investigation of physical evidence for the prosecutor

And now that we’ve gotten deeper into the discussion of the state’s lab, we really ought to start calling it what it really is. As my friend constantly reminds me, it not a Crime Lab, it’s a Forensics Lab. And you couldn’t be more wrong on its role. The Forensics Lab doesn’t work for the Prosecutor any more than the Medical Examiner does. Just like the Judge, they work for the state. Their work is available to both the prosecution and the defense. And because of the nature of their work, barring some narrow and well-defined circumstances, the defense isn’t going to be able to conduct their own autopsies, or test the evidence garments with the GSR on them. Those agencies work for the state, and they strive for unbiased results and reports.

Don’t take this as an insult, but with some of the misstatements and misconceptions of its workings, I’ve really got to wonder how much criminal law you practice.

But I'm afraid that it really has nothing to do with the legal question of the admissibility into evidence of the type of expert opinion testimony under the circumstance, in the context and for the purposes we'd be concerned with.

But it does. Much of what you contend doesn’t happen in the lab, or is impossible to determine, does happen, and is possible to determine. It’s also possible to introduce as evidence.

I’ve seen the Bias case mentioned as the hallmark case for excluding tests on reloaded rounds from the courtroom.

I’ve got to tell you Mas, every time the story is told, and retold it fails to mention all the facts about the case, including when you submitted it for publication. I think they’re relevant. I’ll share them, and let the readers actually come to their own conclusions about the matter.