Your NPE gun and the active shooter

[Kleanbore]

Technically, the first claim was that gun modifications can lead to problems in court.

No. You brought it up, and called it a myth.

C is what I'm challenging. I'm challenging that those who are speaking with authority on the subject are perpetuating this internet lore instead of actual fact. What I'm looking for is actual fact

Thhere you go again.

I don't agree with you.

With what? I have said tha knowledgable attorneys and other use of force evidence have advised that certain things can present risks in criminal and civil cases. Do you contend that they do not, simply because you are not personally aware of how such risks may have materialized? If so, it is obvious that you so not understand risk management.

How do we get legal precedent then?

Different subject. Legal precedent applies to matters of law, and not to matters of fact. Judges apply the law, and jurors assess the facts. Issues relating to the former can be objectively known, but the later cannot.

But if it were something that mattered in court, I would expect there to be one example of it doing so.

We can certainly believe that there have been a number, but how would you find out the detailsone? If the state has chosen to prosecute a case as one of gross negligence rather than as a deliberate use of force, they will not publicly announce why, or hold press conferences about triggers, etc. If an expert witness testifies at trial that a trigger pull weight has been modified and that he does not consider it suitable for prudent defensive carry, who will know that, unless someone has sat through the trial and reported on it? If a legal defense of self defense fails, how could anyone know what weight was given by each juror to each item of evidence that was discussed during the trial? Hint: one cannot know.

We can only rely upon simulation and expert opinion. Without knowing anything about any trials, police armorers can provide expert advice on what constitutes a prudent trigger pull weight for defensive carry by officers and civilians. Without ever taking a case to trial prosecutors and defense attorneys, and in civil cases, the attorneys for the plaintiffs and the respondents, can and do set up mock juries and see what may work well and what may not.

That is the way the world works.

.

 

[Skribs]

No...what's really at issue here is whether the prosecution will use ANYTHING to cause problems for the defendant in court. Gun modifications are only part of that, as I posted earlier. And there really isn't much to providing proof of this. Let's look at Kyle Rittenhouse's trial:

- The prosecution tried to talk about the ammunition choice, bringing up FMJ and JHP ammo and tossing in words to the effect of the "explosive" effect of JHP ammunition for shock value...even though Kyle didn't have JHP loaded in his rifle.

- Kyle's gun had a sling on it (a modification) was an argument AGAINST self-defense against an unarmed attacker. Why? Because it would make Kyle harder to disarm.

- The very fact that Kyle had and used an AR-15 was used to imply criminal intent, and was contrasted with a handgun as an alternative. Even though handguns have a higher age limit to purchase than long guns.

- The fact that Kyle had a TikTok account named "4doorsmorewhores" was presented to make him look like a bad guy. The fact that he had a rifle in his profile picture was also used to this end.

- Playing first-person shooter video games was used to put forth the intent to commit premeditated murder.


AND THE ONLY REASON WE KNOW ABOUT ALL THIS IS THE FACT THAT THIS TRIAL WAS SO HIGHLY PUBLICIZED.

Does anybody here SERIOUSLY believe that if Kyle Rittenhouse's AR-15 had been modified IN ANY WAY more than the addition of the sling to it that those modifications would not have ALSO been brought up?


This is a silly argument to bring up and to continue to beat. It is the JOB of the prosecution to prosecute and gain a conviction in a trial. They will use whatever means they can to do that. And the plain fact of the matter is that he's playing as much to the Jury's feelings/emotions as he is to the plain legal facts of the case.


And trying to relate any given case to another case in order to predict the outcome of any given tidbit of data to a trial, like a specific modification, is folly. A trigger modification of a gun in one self-defense trial may or may not mean anything in another self-defense trial.

But it also proves the point that these modifications and such did not result in a conviction. He was found not guilty.

Yes, a prosecutor can make the argument. But will that argument hold water?

 

[Jeff White]

Yes, a prosecutor can make the argument. But will that argument hold water?

Do you really believe that all juries are the same? Prosecutors wouldn’t make the argument if they didn’t think it could influence the jury.

Jury selection is a science and both prosecutors and defense attorneys seat mock juries and try their strategies out in major cases.

There are many factors that go into how a jury decides guilt or innocence. If you want to say those things are urban legends you are free to do as you please. I don’t know why you would want to give the prosecutor any thing to use against you, but hey just say it’s an urban legend if it comes up in court.

 

[Skribs]

No. You brought it up, and called it a myth.

I brought it up in this thread. I'm not the first one to bring up the subject on this forum.

Thhere you go again.

You mean, stating facts about this thread? Asking for facts that back up your claim? Oh no, shame on me. If I have to guess, I'll guess I'll probably do that again, too.

With what? I have said tha knowledgable attorneys and other use of force evidence have advised that certain things can present risks in criminal and civil cases. Do you contend that they do not, simply because you are not personally aware of how such risks may have materialized? If so, it is ovious that you so not understand risk management

Ha! It is you that don't. There is so much projection in every single insult you sling at me, I'm starting to believe the old "I am rubber, you are glue' poem.

Risks are evaluated based on likelihood that they happen, and severity when they happen. Is it likely to happen that a prosecutor might make these claims? Absolutely. Is it likely to have an adverse effect?

So far, the only case presented in this thread was the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, in which he was acquitted. Yes, the risk materialized. But that event did not harm Mr. Rittenhouse. If anything, it might have helped his case, because the jury could see he was grasping at straws and/or did not have a good understanding of the subject matter.

Whenever I go outside, there's a risk that my shoes will get muddy. But the harm caused by the risk being realized is virtually 0. If I were to say, "Don't go outside, because your shoes will get muddy", I'm guessing you would probably respond with, "So?" That's my response to this debate. So what if a prosecutor will try to argue that I'm a murderer because I put a new trigger on my M&P? Those arguments have been shown not to hold weight, by the one anecdote we have.

Different subject. Legal precedent applies to matters of law, and not to matters of fact. Judges apply the law, and jurors assess the facts. Issues relating to the former can be objectively known, but the later cannot.

Give me an example that's subjective, then. I keep moving the goalposts in your favor, and yet you still have not given me a single example.

We can oly rely upon simulation and expert opinion. Without knowing anything about any trials, police armorers can provide expert advice on what constitutes a prudent trigger pull weight for defensive carry by officers and civilians. Without ever taking a case to trial ,prosecutors and defense attorneys, and in civil cases, the attorneys for the plaintiffs and the respondents, can and do set up mock juries and see what may work well and what may not.

You criticized me for a different subject. So is this. What is prudent to carry is based on what they consider safe from negligent discharge. Best practices and good shoot are two different things.

 

[Skribs]

Do you really believe that all juries are the same? Prosecutors wouldn’t make the argument if they didn’t think it could influence the jury.

Jury selection is a science and both prosecutors and defense attorneys seat mock juries and try their strategies out in major cases.

There are many factors that go into how a jury decides guilt or innocence. If you want to say those things are urban legends you are free to do as you please. I don’t know why you would want to give the prosecutor any thing to use against you, but hey just say it’s an urban legend if it comes up in court.

So provide an example of the opposite situation.

I've been asked to provide proof. Thankfully, someone else brought up the Rittenhouse trial, in which it wasn't the case. I have now provided the standard of proof that I am asking for - one example. Please provide a counter example that proves it can be a detriment.

 

[shafter]

My first priority is will this accessory or modification have a meaningful affect on my ability to defend myself, and if I don't use it will it place me at a realistic and serious disadvantage? If the answer is yes then I will use it.

If it does not provide any meaningful advantage and the lack of using it does not hinder my ability to defend myself then I won't use it and potentially muddy the waters in court.

 

[GEM]

Skribs, you need to read the models of juror decision making. The decision is not based on one factor. It is the interaction of all the factors producing a coherent story either for defense or prosecution. That Rittenhouse was found not guilty does not mean that one factor has no influence. His actions and the actions of the people he shot were convincing.

I gave you a clear case of how firearms issues influenced the Goetz trial. It wasn't a modification, so you can dance around that but it shows how such issues did have a negative outcome. Some jurors thought they should lead to the SD conviction but the brilliant other issues overwhelmed them. Goetz's lawyer did not counter the HP issue with some gun world jabbering, he made the case on other issues. But in the carry case, it came to the fore as implying motivation to ignore the law.

Here's an easy read to get folks out of Internet BS and into the technical literature of experts:
Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science (Psychology and Crime)
Devine, Dennis J.

 

[Kleanbore]

it

Risks are evaluated based on likelihood that they happen, and severity when they happen.

You got it.

I have now provided the standard of proof that I am asking for - one example.

No one in his ritht mind would ever design and implement a means of managing risk on the basis of one incident.

So far, the only case presented in this thread,,,So provide an example...Please provide a counter example

We are discussing risk management, not the recounting of history. We have explained a number of times, in a a number of ways, why you're not going to get it.

In the insurance business, one can reliably assess risks on the basis of actual statistics and historical data, because there is an awful lot of it. In some other fields , however, that cannot be done, and we have to employ other means. This is one of them.

In a prior life, I was responsible for risk assessment and for the development of systems of risk management for things for which directly applicable historical data did not yet exist. Sometimes that proved to be quite a challenge. For the subject at hand, it should not. I have explained how attorneys do it.

What is prudent to carry is based on what they consider safe from negligent discharge. Best practices and good shoot are two different things.

The first part of that is certainly true. But for reasons already discussed, a defendant's or respondent's claim that he fired deliberately is subject to challenge, and a modified trigger could provide a basis for such a challenge. And if the case turns into one of a negligent discharge, it cannot necessarily be a "good shoot". A self defense justification cannot apply in a case of negligent discharge.

The question for the jury could be ""which was it"? The defendant or respondent does not get to define that. That light trigger, and an expert witness's characterization of it, will not help the defendant or respondent.

 

[Jeff White]

The question for the jury could be ""which was it"? The defendant or respondent does not get to define that. That light trigger, and an expert witness's characterization of it, will not help the defendant or respondent.

Do you have any real life experience in court?

 

[Skribs]

No one in his ritht mind would ever design and implement a means of managing risk on the basis of one incident.

If it's one incident out of a hundred, you would be correct. This is one incident out of one. I agree it's a small data set. But so far, it's the only data provided.

Provide one piece of data to back up your claim. I have repeatedly asked for this, and you've been nothing but evasive and full of excuses why you can't. One piece of data. Or at least agree that this is a controversial topic and not 100% decided in your favor.

 

[Kleanbore]

If it's one incident out of a hundred, you would be correct. This is one incident out of one

???

Provide one piece of data to back up your claim. I have repeatedly asked for this, and you've been nothing but evasive and full of excuses why you can't. One piece of data.

What would you or ayone else do with it?

. Or at least agree that this is a controversial topic and not 100% decided in your favor.

I do not understand what you mean. I do not see the subject as "controversial". Are you suggesting some people believe that the subject at hand could involve risk, and that some believe that it does not?
I will say that, since it pertains to risk, the subject is replete with uncertainty, and that no one can say in any confidence how things will turn out in the event.

 

[Kleanbore]

Do you have any real life experience in court?

Other than jury duty, no. But I have supported litigation processes, answered questions from investigators, responded to subpoenas, designed and implemented procedures to comply with the rules of evidence...... Nothing to do with use if force incidents.

 

[Skribs]

???

1 is a small sample size. But, so far we have this one example, so it constitutes 100% of the data. If the data were 100 cases and only 1 favored my side, then this case would be the outlier. But currently we don't have anything to prove that this is the outlier.

Find me another case where modifications swayed the jury's decision (or could reasonably be believed to have swayed them), and now we'll have 2 data points, and the 1 that favors mine is only 50%. Find me 10 data points that prove otherwise, and unless I do some homework and find more in return, I'm an outlier at 9%.

However, in the concept of risk management, it can take the results of one event for folks to risk manage around it.

• One event in which a newly discovered vulnerability is attacked can lead to risk management around that vulnerability.
• One event in which an attack is successfully thwarted can help assess the strength of the controls against that attack.

What would you or ayone else do with it?

Have an ounce of belief in your argument. Which is what I assume you want, since you're arguing so much.

I assume you know this, because you had asked me for such as well.

I do not understand what you mean. I do not see the subject as "controversial". Are you suggesting some people believe that the subject at hand could involve risk, and that some believe that it does not?
I will say that, since it pertains to risk, the subject is replete with uncertainty, and that no one can say in any confidence how things will turn out in the event.

And you say that I don't understand risk management.

Risk management is about finding risk mitigation strategies that you're confident in. For example, if you have backups of your servers, you can have reasonable confidence that they are protected from a ransomware attack. Especially if those backups are secondarily hardened against modification. It's understood that you will lose some data. But the infrastructure and the bulk of your data will be accurate and current.

Unless there is an example of where having a legal modification turned a good shoot into a conviction, I can say with confidence that you're not going to face any real consequences for the modification, as the myth suggests you would.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Unless there is an example of where having a legal modification turned a good shoot into a conviction, I can say with confidence that you're not going to face any real consequences for the modification, as the myth suggests you would.

Here's one that includes "real consequences" for a "legal modification":

https://casetext.com/case/santibanes-v-city-of-tomball

A police officer who pulled over a stolen vehicle shot one of the vehicle's occupants. The officer claimed that he shot accidentally. The injured suspect sued the officer and the city, and the city moved for summary judgement.

In considering the motion for summary judgement, the court noted that the gun (a G21) was functioning properly, and that therefore, the only reason for the gun to discharge was that the officer pulled the trigger. It also noted the following:

"Finally, the Court takes note of the modification to Sergeant Williams' weapon. In particular, he initially stated that his weapon — a Glock brand 21, .45 caliber pistol — had not been modified. However, after forensic testing and inspection, it was revealed that the weapon had, in fact, been modified in three separate respects. The relevant modification was to the weapon's trigger connector. The record also shows that Sergeant Williams, prior to the incident, replaced the pistol's 5 pound trigger connector with a Glock 3.5 pound trigger connector. Forensic testing determined that this modification reduced the force needed to pull the trigger to approximately 4.5 pounds, making it easier to fire the weapon. In light of these considerations, whether Sergeant Williams, in fact, intended to discharge his weapon is an issue that cannot and should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage."

Because the motion for summary judgement was denied, the city incurred significant additional legal expenses to defend the case.

"Legal modification" led to "real consequences".


With low risk, one can make quite a few modifications to a self-defense firearm. Better sights, better grip shape or size, smoother trigger, to name a few.

But lightening a trigger is difficult to defend, since 1) a lighter trigger is no real advantage to accurate and fast combat shooting, and, 2) as this case shows, can be construed as potentially making an accidental trigger press more likely.

Now, will you guys please take this gun modification argument outside of this thread?

 

[Jeff White]

Other than jury duty, no. But I have supported litigation processes, answered questions from investigators, responded to subpoenas, designed and implemented procedures to comply with the rules of evidence...... Nothing to do with use if force incidents.

Sorry I meant to ask Skribs that question. One's first exposure to court is usually an eye opener.

 

[Skribs]

Here's one that includes "real consequences" for a "legal modification":

https://casetext.com/case/santibanes-v-city-of-tomball

A police officer who pulled over a stolen vehicle shot one of the vehicle's occupants. The officer claimed that he shot accidentally. The injured suspect sued the officer and the city, and the city moved for summary judgement.

In considering the motion for summary judgement, the court noted that the gun (a G21) was functioning properly, and that therefore, the only reason for the gun to discharge was that the officer pulled the trigger. It also noted the following:

"Finally, the Court takes note of the modification to Sergeant Williams' weapon. In particular, he initially stated that his weapon — a Glock brand 21, .45 caliber pistol — had not been modified. However, after forensic testing and inspection, it was revealed that the weapon had, in fact, been modified in three separate respects. The relevant modification was to the weapon's trigger connector. The record also shows that Sergeant Williams, prior to the incident, replaced the pistol's 5 pound trigger connector with a Glock 3.5 pound trigger connector. Forensic testing determined that this modification reduced the force needed to pull the trigger to approximately 4.5 pounds, making it easier to fire the weapon. In light of these considerations, whether Sergeant Williams, in fact, intended to discharge his weapon is an issue that cannot and should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage."

Because the motion for summary judgement was denied, the city incurred significant additional legal expenses to defend the case.

"Legal modification" led to "real consequences".


With low risk, one can make quite a few modifications to a self-defense firearm. Better sights, better grip shape or size, smoother trigger, to name a few.

But lightening a trigger is difficult to defend, since 1) a lighter trigger is no real advantage to accurate and fast combat shooting, and, 2) as this case shows, can be construed as potentially making an accidental trigger press more likely.

Now, will you guys please take this gun modification argument outside of this thread?

The fact that it was modified possibly led him to have a negligent discharge, which is a valid reason to suggest not altering the weapon.

However, in terms of the court, this might have actually helped him. The deliberation is between him purposefully pulling the trigger and him having a negligent discharge. Until this evidence was considered, the only explanation they had was that it was intentional.

This was a bad shoot from the start. This is not an example of a good shoot being turned into a bad shoot. This is an example of a bad shoot getting the repercussions lessened, rather than a good shoot getting repercussions added.

 

[JohnKSa]

Technically, the first claim was that gun modifications can lead to problems in court.

You brought the topic up in post #8 of the thread before anyone else mentioned it. The context indicated that you were saying that you didn't agree with it and it's clear from later comments that was the case. So you bring the topic up saying it's a non-issue. The burden of proof is on you.

Then everything exists, because nothing can not exist without evidence, according to this.

Absolutely not true and my other comments make it clear exactly why that's not true and even lays out a method for dealing with that kind of issue. Which you quote, by the way in the post I'm responding to.

If I say unicorns don't exist, does that mean they do, because I can't prove they don't?

No. If you say unicorns don't exist, then you provide evidence for your case. You would quote experts in the field, perhaps explain the probability of a large mammal existing undetected over the period of recorded history, etc. One can never CATEGORICALLY prove that something doesn't exist, but one may be able to (dependent on the circumstances) to demonstrate that it the probability of it existing is small enough that a rational person can conclude that they won't ever see one.

But if I believe X and you believe Y, then arguing reasoning and logic isn't going to change either of our minds 99.99% of the time.

If the beliefs of one or both persons aren't based on the facts, or are based on a flawed understanding of the facts, or if the facts aren't clear, then that's true. If facts matter to both people, then the only way that can be true is if the facts aren't clear.

You and Kleanbore want your assertation to be taken as truth without actually having to support it.

It has been supported. The problem comes when one rejects the opinions and experience provided by experts in the field and or has a flawed understanding of how facts can be used against a defendant in court and the complications that can arise to counter such an action.

How do we get legal precedent then?

Someone pays an attorney a lot of money to buy access to court records and then search through them until something relevant to the case that matters to the person paying is found.

But if it were something that mattered in court, I would expect there to be one example of it doing so.

You mean, "...if it were something that could matter in court..." The idea that it has to matter in every case where there is a modified firearm is a strawman. But yes, there are examples--ones that are commonly rejected by people who don't care about the facts or who are arguing against a strawman and not the actual assertion.

If the data were 100 cases and only 1 favored my side, then this case would be the outlier.

This isn't an argument that will be won with a preponderance of the evidence because it is not the strawman argument that gun modifications are bound to be an issue in court any time they could possibly be. No one is claiming that gun modifications are always an issue, nor even that they are likely to be an issue in every case where they could possibly be brought up. It's about acknowledging the existence of a risk that can and has complicated legal defenses, potentially swayed jurors in the direction of conviction, etc. If a particular person doesn't think it's a big enough risk for them to worry about, then that's fine. Everybody makes their own assessment of what they want to/can prepare for and that's fine as long as they have a proper understanding of the situation. The problem comes when they don't really understand the situation or have rejected the facts/mischaracterized the situation to rationalize their decision. It's very difficult to make a correct decision about risk based on flawed or intentionally mischaracterized facts. If one, for example, assesses a real risk to be a myth, it's unlikely that their risk strategy will deal with that risk properly.

Unless there is an example of where having a legal modification turned a good shoot into a conviction, I can say with confidence that you're not going to face any real consequences for the modification, as the myth suggests you would.

-- You are completely neglecting the issue of civil liability even though, by any rational standard, it carries "real consequences."

--It is not necessary for a person to be convicted to suffer "real consequences". If they have to bring in an expert witness to counter a claim by the prosecution, that costs money and lengthens the legal proceedings. If a person has unlimited funds, free legal representation, and no consequences from being away from work, then I suppose they wouldn't suffer "real consequences".

-- A person who did not have a "good shoot" and was going to be convicted anyway could still suffer "real consequences" in the form of a more serious charge or more severe sentencing if the prosecution is able to use the circumstances of the case (e.g. gun modifications) to convince the judge/jury of mindset.

However, in terms of the court, this might have actually helped him. The deliberation is between him purposefully pulling the trigger and him having a negligent discharge. Until this evidence was considered, the only explanation they had was that it was intentional.

-- Again, you are completely neglecting civil liability. If you point a gun at someone and shoot them without meaning to, there's going to be a civil trial if they are injured or killed. If you modified the gun and that modification is relevant to the outcome, it's definitely going to become an issue. There will definitely be "real consequences".

-- Unintentionally killing someone may very well be a criminal act. You acknowledge that a gun modification may contribute substantially to unintentionally shooting/killing someone which means it could very obviously carry very real legal consequences.

But it also proves the point that these modifications and such did not result in a conviction. He was found not guilty.

It only proves that it did not result in conviction in this case.

And the fact that it did not does not mean there were no consequences. The defense had to counter the point and that doesn't happen for free.

I brought it up in this thread. I'm not the first one to bring up the subject on this forum.

Creative, I'll give you that. No, that's not how it works. You and everyone who has any clue about reasonable debate understands that's not how it works.

So far, the only case presented in this thread was the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, in which he was acquitted.

1. Wrong. At the time you posted, there were at least two provided. Now there are at least three.

2. As mentioned, an acquittal is not evidence that no consequences were suffered by the defendant.

Here's your position on what constitutes evidence, as far as I can see.

"It can only be a court case* that has real consequences** for the defendant.

*Only a criminal case***.
**"Real consequences" can only mean "conviction".
***Must be a "good shoot"**** to start with.
****You reserve the final authority on whether or not it's "good shoot".​

When a person finds it necessary to severely, and artificially restrict the type of evidence that they will accept as valid in a debate, effectively setting themselves up as the only legitimate "arbiter of truth" and allowing them to dismiss virtually any point that doesn't support their assertion, it should raise an alarm that causes them to stop and ask what they are doing and why.

 

[Kleanbore]

1 is a small sample size. But, so far we have this one example, so it constitutes 100% of the data.

That's ridiculous. We have no idea of how many other cases might exist. ONE CANNOT EXAMINE ONE DATA POINT AND CONCLUDE THAT IT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL CASES. Science doesn't work that way, and neither does statistical analysis.

Find me another case where modifications swayed the jury's decision (or could reasonably be believed to have swayed them), and now we'll have 2 data points,

Yeah--but out of how many?

Find me 10 data points that prove otherwise, and...

One more time, whan the availability of acual data is limited, we cannot reasonably base any reliable conclusions on the data. This is not actuarial analysis for insurance purposes.

Unless there is an example of where having a legal modification turned a good shoot into a conviction, I can say with confidence that you're not going to face any real consequences for the modification, as the myth suggests you would.

I am sure that you did not mean to say that. At least, I hope so.

 

[GEM]

Unless there is an example of where having a legal modification turned a good shoot into a conviction, I can say with confidence that you're not going to face any real consequences for the modification, as the myth suggests you would.

A total lack of understanding about what is a 'good shoot'. You are on trial because the shoot is at best ambiguous to some and bad to the legal process. A total misunderstanding on how decisions are made from the total story being told. Like I said, go read up on these processes, otherwise - it's just Internet hot air.

 

[Kleanbore]

Here's an easy read to get folks out of Internet BS and into the technical literature of experts:
Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science (Psychology and Crime)
Devine, Dennis J.

Thanks. Based on the table of contents, that does look excellent. On order for the Kindle,

 

[Skribs]

I'm done with this argument. You guys clearly have 0 evidence to support your claim. It's all wild speculation. You can holler yourself hoarse until the cows come home, but you have not one single shred of evidence to support your side of the argument. I'm not going to sit here and be insulted about having some data by people who have none.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm done with this argument.

That is probably a very good thing.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

But it also proves the point that these modifications and such did not result in a conviction. He was found not guilty.

Yes, a prosecutor can make the argument. But will that argument hold water?

They did not result in a conviction in THIS case.

That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it will result in a conviction in any OTHER case.

 

[JohnKSa]

Also, a "conviction" is absolutely not the only possible negative outcome. If the defense feels they need to call in an expert witness, for example, to counter a claim/assertion by the prosecution, that will probably cost a lot of money.

If the expert witness needs a week to prepare and ends up testifying for an hour, that's going to run around $16,500 on average, according to this website.

https://blog.seakexperts.com/expert-witness-fees-how-much-should-an-expert-witness-charge/

 

[shafter]

This is getting really dumb. Of course modifications can have a negative outcome on a case. Will they in your particular case? Who the heck knows. I have a relative who was a juror on a very famous and public case in recent years. He voted the way he did simply to not be different from everyone else. People are fickle and judges, lawyers, and juries are all people so anything can happen. Best to do your utmost to never be at their mercy.