Maryland: Bullet ballistics isn’t smoking gun evidence

[hpman66]

Will this ruin the plots of movie/TV crime shows, not to mention police murder/homicide cases?

MD high court: Ballistics experts can't testify that recovered bullets match firearms

The field of firearms identification is not reliable enough to allow expert testimony linking crime scene bullets to specific guns, Maryland's top court ruled.

thedailyrecord.com

 

[hpman66]

The Maryland Supreme Court limits the use of ballistics evidence at trials

The Maryland Supreme Court limits the use of ballistics evidence at trials

wtlocal.com

 

[Hvymax]

It never should have been except to verify possibility. I'm pretty sure that 2 guns from the same production line with the same barrel source would be fairly similar barring modifications.

 

[Mobuck]

I've always questioned the validity of comparing land/grooves on bullets as 100% evidential proof. In a given number of barrels produced by a specific rifling machine, just how many or what percentage will be so close to identical as to negate such 'proof'.

 

[ronto]

Will a unique flaw found in an individual gun that is not found in other guns be allowed at trial?

 

[kmoore]

It's really not that big of deal. Likely just a lot of about which words are used. With most all evidence there is not 100% true all of the time. The appropriate language to be used in most cases is what was said in the article. "This bullet is consistent with other bullets fired in the gun in question" or "they are not". If an expert is so bold to say without any doubt this bullet was fired from that gun, the expert is putting themselves out on a limb they may not be able to prove. But, bullets aren't the only evidence. Cases have a lot of value also. With bullets used as evidence it was, (I say was because I don't know about today's tests) The expert would have the bullet from the crime scene. They would ID it as to caliber, weight and brand. Then get some of that ammo, fire the same bullets through the gun in evidence. They would compare about 3 bullets and not find 1 thing in common but many. What's easier to say is that bullet was fired from a certain brand and maybe model of gun.

 

[Hvymax]

Will a unique flaw found in an individual gun that is not found in other guns be allowed at trial?

That would be it's own circumstance. If they can point to specific damage that left a specific mark then that could be presented. I don't believe 90+% of so called ID's would meet that criterion.

 

[Bob Wright]

In the early days of Firearms Identification, the FBI tested bullets fired from the same barrel blank, that is, 6" or 8" sections cut from the same barrel blank. Bullets fired from each section exhibited different characteristics. So far as I know, all such evidence was made by comparing a recovered bullet from the deceased, if he were dead, or from the wounded victim if he survived, and one fired from the suspect firearm. The FBI had made an extensive study resulting from the "St. Valentine's Day Massacre" in Chicago. Photos taken through a comparison microscope were considered admissible evidence at the time, and has been since. Until now.

Bob Wright

 

[Fox Mike]

It's really not that big of deal. Likely just a lot of about which words are used. With most all evidence there is not 100% true all of the time. The appropriate language to be used in most cases is what was said in the article. "This bullet is consistent with other bullets fired in the gun in question" or "they are not". If an expert is so bold to say without any doubt this bullet was fired from that gun, the expert is putting themselves out on a limb they may not be able to prove. But, bullets aren't the only evidence. Cases have a lot of value also. With bullets used as evidence it was, (I say was because I don't know about today's tests) The expert would have the bullet from the crime scene. They would ID it as to caliber, weight and brand. Then get some of that ammo, fire the same bullets through the gun in evidence. They would compare about 3 bullets and not find 1 thing in common but many. That's easier to say is that bullet was fired from a certain brand and maybe model of gun.

Maryland had collected untold amounts of cases. This from the November 7 2015 Baltimore Sun:
"Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.
Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.
But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap."

 

[GunnyGene]

It's really not that big of deal. Likely just a lot of about which words are used. With most all evidence there is not 100% true all of the time. The appropriate language to be used in most cases is what was said in the article. "This bullet is consistent with other bullets fired in the gun in question" or "they are not". If an expert is so bold to say without any doubt this bullet was fired from that gun, the expert is putting themselves out on a limb they may not be able to prove. But, bullets aren't the only evidence. Cases have a lot of value also. With bullets used as evidence it was, (I say was because I don't know about today's tests) The expert would have the bullet from the crime scene. They would ID it as to caliber, weight and brand. Then get some of that ammo, fire the same bullets through the gun in evidence. They would compare about 3 bullets and not find 1 thing in common but many. That's easier to say is that bullet was fired from a certain brand and maybe model of gun.

Some guns don't throw spent cases all over the place.

 

[hpman66]

What about firing pin/primer matches?????

 

[wolfsong]

Why be concerned what the courts rule, if you're not using your gun to illegally shoot someone?

 

[Bob Wright]

Why be concerned what the courts rule, if you're not using your gun to illegally shoot someone?

Well, that does concern me as it is one more item that is no longer a valid evidence. And so more criminals are either set free after being acquitted in court, and then others already in prison are freed because of that ruling. Thus our crumbling justice system. At this rate, ther will be no more "wrong."

Bob Wright

 

[wolfsong]

Well, that does concern me as it is one more item that is no longer a valid evidence. And so more criminals are either set free after being acquitted in court, and then others already in prison are freed because of that ruling. Thus our crumbling justice system. At this rate, ther will be no more "wrong."

Bob Wright

The "evidence" must be valid in order to be ruled admissible to be used in a court of law, much like polygraph tests and the "fruit of the poisined tree" where evidence found as a result of an improper search is inadmissible.

Very, very few new laws are grandfathered in. Even fewer result in incarcerated people being acquitted after the fact.

Forensic technology science is advancing everyday. Apparently some ballistic evidence is not as cut and dried as previosly believed.

Taking the freedom from a man and putting him in a prison cell is not a thing to be taken lightly. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is first and foremost the law of the land. The evidence used against him must be valid at all costs.

 

[wolfsong]

Why worry about warrantless searches if you're not doing anything wrong?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't worry. I would not submit to a warrantless search.

 

[Hvymax]

Why be concerned what the courts rule, if you're not using your gun to illegally shoot someone?

You obviously don't understand how infringements work. How many people have been falsely convicted based on "Expert" testimony??? They might determine that the bullet was fired from a Ruger XXX and check their records and see that you own a Ruger XXX. They haul you in and determine that your Ruger XXX makes the same impression as almost every other Ruger XXX so you must be guilty. Sure if a barrel has specific damage it could possibly be distinctive from others of the same model but could you believe beyond a reasonable doubt? Sure if they can point to specific damage that makes it distinctive like specific fouling, putting, burrs etc they could make a case but for the most part would you want YOUR life to hang in that balance based on the fact that you use the same firearm using the same Walmart ammo as the shooter?

 

[Hvymax]

Well, that does concern me as it is one more item that is no longer a valid evidence. And so more criminals are either set free after being acquitted in court, and then others already in prison are freed because of that ruling. Thus our crumbling justice system. At this rate, ther will be no more "wrong."

Bob Wright

It will also make it harder to railroad someone based on circumstantial evidence. Some old guy robs a bank and shoots someone with what is determined to be a Ruger Blackhawk. The police round up all the old guys with Ruger Blackhawks and you don't have an alibi because you were home alone. The prosecutor makes a case against you based on your gun being the same as the criminals. Now do you want some "Expert" saying the bullet was fired from YOUR gun or a gun consistent with yours hopefully forcing them to find other more convincing evidence for or against you? Our system isn't exactly perfect and Prosecutors only care if they can get a conviction for better stats when running for higher office. They're Lawyers who could generally care less about Right or Wrong it's all about the WIN!

 

[Deer Hunter]

Some of us have magazine fed revolvers. I carry this when the Webley-Fosbery is dirty.

View attachment 24041

OK. Help me out here. What is that and are those green things the cartridges?

 

[GunnyGene]

That is a Dardick. The green things change the shape of the cartridge to make them into "trounds" that fit the unique open sided chambers of the cylinder.

That has to be one of the most unusual handguns I've ever laid eyes on. Is that a relatively new design or an antique?

Never mind, I looked it up. Quite a collector item.

 

[Bob Wright]

That has to be one of the most unusual handguns I've ever laid eyes on. Is that a relatively new design or an antique?

The Dardick Pistol, like the Gyrojet, can best be described as a flash in the pan. It offered nothing other than novelty. And adapters were to be available so the gun could use .38 Special or .357 Magnum ammunition.

On top of being next to useless, it was also ugly, in my opinion.

Bob Wright