imp said:
...I thought I would ask if anyone has documented, available information of court cases won or lost because of some gun owners firearm type or ammunition selection....
[1] The legal issues regarding the use of handloads for self defense have been discussed here. See:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423771
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391656
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394682
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397127
[2] If you're going to need to tell your story to a jury, in my view, certain types of modification, basically things like disabling a safety device, could make things tougher for you. These issues have been discussed at great length on this board. See the following threads:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=372759
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366434
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388901
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3586536
imp said:
....I keep hearing "don't use reloads, dont use hunting ammo, dont use a single action, dont use a semi-auto rifle, or you wind up in jail" type statements from well meaning folks who have not one scrap of evidence to back it up...
The threshold question is always whether any of these factors (e. g.,modified gun, handloaded ammunition, etc,) were even present in past cases. How often have certain guns (or handloaded ammunition) been used in an incident in which self defense was claimed and which went to trial?
Historical research is helpful only if there's sufficient historical data. If the question is something like, "Is a private citizen who shoots someone and claims self defense more likely to be charged if he used a modified, or certain type of, gun or handloads compared with a stock gun or factory ammunition?", or "Is a private citizen who shoots someone and claims self defense more likely to be convicted at trial if he used a modified, or certain type of, gun or handloads compared with a stock gun or factory ammunition?", the availability of useful data depends on (1) a large enough sample of private citizens having shot someone in claimed self defense; and (2) a large enough subset of those private citizens having used a modified gun, or a certain type of gun, or handloads. I suggest that the vast majority of people who keep guns for self defense aren't enthusiasts and use stock guns and commercial ammunition. Indeed, even many of the members here, who are enthusiasts, use stock guns and commercial ammunition for self defense.
Just because there is insufficient historical data doesn't mean that professionals can't draw reasoned conclusions about how likely a particular result might be under certain circumstance. Indeed, it often happens in the practice of law that a particular issue of interest has not previously been addressed by an appellate court, and one must make a reasoned judgment without the guidance of on point precedent.
Things that go on in trials don't routinely hit the legal publications. In general, only decisions of an appellate court get published. So it would be very unlikely to see a case in which an issue with a lightened trigger showed up in published reports of appellate courts. There are very few cases of self defense in which a gun is actually fired; and only a few of those involved a modified gun; and only a few of those wind up in trial; and only a portion of those go up on appeal.
However, we have reasons to believe that things like ammunition or type of gun used can have an effect on the way members of a jury will view matters and therefore on whether, or how, they can be convinced. For example:
- From post verdict interviews of some of the jurors who convicted Harold Fish in Arizona, we know that the ammunition Fish used played a part in the jury verdict. (Fish did win his appeal, a new trial ordered, and the DA chose instead to dismiss the charges.)
- Jury simulation studies as describe in this article suggest that the type of gun used can also affect the perceptions of a jury. (The author, Dr. Glenn Meyer, is a moderator here.)
- I have personal knowledge, based on my participation in post verdict interviews of jurors, of how various things can affect how a juror views and evaluates evidence.
As Nassim Nicholas Taleb points out repeatedly in his books
Fooled by Randomness, the Hidden Role of Chance (Random House, 2004) and
The Black Swan, the Impact of the Highly Improbable (Random House, 2007), "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Taleb, a securities trader and professor at the University of Massachusetts, provides some interesting and useful insights into strategies for dealing with rare events.
csmsss said:
I personally don't think the Bias case is a terribly good example. ... His defense was fairly implausible in my opinion, GSR tests or no GSR tests, and I don't think the jury verdict was inconsistent with the evidence...
One of the primary reasons Daniel Bias was convicted was that expert opinion he offered corroborating his exculpatory story wasn't accepted into evidence because the gun in question was loaded with his handloaded ammunition.
So let's take a look at
Bias.
[1] The case of Daniel Bias deals with
the admissibility of GSR test results. It was not a self defense case. But that doesn't matter for our purposes. What is significant to us in
Bias is
a matter of the rules of evidence, and
those rules and their application are the same in all types of cases.
Daniel Bias was charged with, and ultimately convicted of, killing his wife. He claimed she committed suicide. Part of the prosecution's case was that test firings of commercial ammunition bearing the same headstamp as the round fired showed GSR deposits on the target at the distance from which Bias claimed his wife shot herself. There was, however, no GSR "tattooing" on Bias' wife's body, and the prosecution argued that showed that Bias' wife was shot at a greater distance than (1) Bias claimed; and (2) was compatible with suicide.
Bias claimed that the gun his wife used to shoot herself with was loaded with very light handloads he prepared for her self defense use. They were very light because Bias' wife was sensitive to recoil.
Test firings by an expert engaged by Bias of ammunition that Bias claimed matched the loading of the round that killed his wife showed no GSR deposits on the target at the critical distance. However, the judge would not allow those test results to be entered into evidence on the grounds that there was insufficient foundation to establish that the ammunition tested did indeed match the death round.
[2] The lesson for us from
Bias is that if we fire a gun in self defense and it becomes necessary or desirable to our legal defense to look to GSR test evidence to help corroborate our story, e. g., our distance from the alleged assailant when we fired, we might be out of luck if we used handloaded ammunition.
That might not come up in every self defense case, but we have no way of knowing in advance if it might come up in ours, if we're ever unlucky enough to be in that position. But it does come up as shown in
this post on another board by Marty Hayes (who's a member here as well).
[3] The result in Bias is actually consistent with basic evidentiary principles.
Say you may want to introduce GSR evidence to corroborate your story about how the event took place.
You therefore engage an expert to conduct tests reproducing the circumstances of the event. You want the test results to validate your story of how things took place. If you're claiming self defense, you're hoping that your expert witness can take ammunition which can be established to be substantially identical to the ammunition you shot the alleged attacker with under conditions replicating the shooting as you have contended it took place and produce GSR similar to the GSR produced at the scene. And that will, you hope, allow your expert to testify that in his opinion the shooting took place as you had described it.
That can only work, and you can get the sort of expert testimony you need in your defense, if the judge can be satisfied that the ammunition tested by your expert was substantially identical to the ammunition with which you shot the guy you claim attacked you.
If you used handloads, the only evidence you can offer to support the claim that the ammunition tested was substantially identical to the ammunition used in the claimed self defense event will be your testimony to that effect. Your testimony on that point would be suspect because you are vitally interested in the outcome and there can be no independent corroboration of your claim as to what was in the ammunition you used to defend yourself with.
On the other hand, if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, the you could show that Federal Cartridge Company manufactures large quantities subject to certain quality controls to a certain degree of uniformity. In addition, Federal Cartridge Company is a non-involved third party making ammunition for sale to the general public. That would most likely establish an adequate foundation to secure admission into evidence of GSR test results of exemplar Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto ammunition in support of your expert's opinion.
It's all about being able to perform a test under conditions that a judge can be convinced mirror the event sufficiently to permit an expert to draw valid conclusions about the event from the test results.
JerryM said:
...Although it has or might have been brought up in one case I am persuaded that a good defense attorney can deflect those arguments...
Glad you have so much confidence in attorneys. But I need to tell you that there are at least two attorneys in this thread who understand that, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, ..." sometimes the jury will not be moved.
Making a good argument and having it accepted by a judge or jury are two different things. The only argument that is sure to "win" is the one I don't have to make.