Posted by 357Terms: [The statement that results from ammunition that was not produced under factory conditions and for which the manufacturing and test data, and the custody of same, cannot be independently validated would be subject to challenge and, based current court rulings, would almost certainly not be admitted is] Speculation.
No, it is not.
Anything is subject to challenge, provided that the timing of the challenges is within the rules. Once an item of scientific forensic trace evidence and the related expert testimony has been challenged, the judge has specific rules under which he or she must determine admissibility. These rules vary among states. They are not speculation.
In many states, the
Daubert standard applies. The case(s) of
Daubert v Merrell Dow, though having nothing to do with ammunition, established the legal precedent that applies in those states and in Federal courts.
Most people who have a working knowledge of the subject (some, but by no means all, attorneys have such knowledge, and I was at one time responsible for helping to ensure that certain items
would be admissible in court under the
Daubert rule) understand why evidence involving exemplar samples that were not produced under strict processes with strict independent verification would fail to meet the standard. The reasons have been explained on THR in summary form numerous times, but for those who choose to not accept the explanation, and for those for whom in depth legal study of the subject would not be practical, the only viable remedy would be to spend a half of day with a very patient and understanding expert in current evidentiary principles and the scientific process.
If the reloads that I use for SD were consistent with the loads that were recovered, at the scene or on my reloading bench, why wouldn't they be admitted?
The one thing one can be pretty sure of is that if one is going to trial, the prosecutor, or in the case of a civil trial, the plaintiff, will be motivated to file a motion to exclude the evidence if said evidence would be favorable to the defendant. In the case of ammunition test results and expert testimony about same, the basis for such a motion readily exists.
What happens then is up to the judge, who must make his or her determination under the rules of evidence.
The reasons for exclusion could be manyfold, ranging from questions about verifiability to the size of the data sample and including anything in between.
By the way, what one trial court judge decides or has decided does not establish legal precedent. Precedence would only be established by the outcome of appellate rulings, and such precedence will set forth the universal evidentiary and other legal principles involved, rather than something specific about the kind of evidence in question.
In making a determination under a
Daubert challenge, however, a trial judge may well base his or her decision upon the scientific analysis and peer review results used by another judge in determining admissibility or inadmissibility of the same particular
kindof evidence.
One thing that has come up in these discussion is the possibility that, once a trial judge has made a determinative admissibility ruling in a case involving a particular kind of evidence, an appeal would be the next step. Not very likely. Unless a new evidentiary principle is in question or an error by the court is alleged, the appeals have already been made and decided upon, in
United States v. Frye and in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow.
Based on my knowledge, I think it is very,
very unlikely that any judge in whose court a challenge is filed would rule to admit GSR test data involving the use of specimens that were not manufactured by an independent factory. There are too many obvious divergences from the
Daubert principles to support such a decision
What does remain to be seen is whether the heretofore commonly accepted use of GSR distance testing results is ever challenged, and how the results will play out. That wouldn't have anything directly to do with handloads, but, should it ever be determined that GSR distance testing is not admissible anyway, that would make the handloads vs. factory loads question moot.