jmortimer said:
"...there's no trustworthy exemplar that can ever be used in his defense." If you keep good records the evidence would for sure be admissible as a "business record" and an expert would have all the information necessary to testify regarding the ballistics...
Probably not. Daniel Bias kept good records, and they didn't help him.
GSR Test Results Won't Be Admissible Into Evidence If You Use Handloads
Let's look at
Bias, because that case well illustrates how, if you used handloads, the rules of evidence would keep a defendant, that's you claiming self defense, from putting in front of the jury useful expert opinion based on gun shot residue test results.
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.
[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.
We Have to Get Over This "Good Shoot" Business
Sure if everyone agrees that it was a "good shoot" the gun, the ammunition, etc., are all irrelevant. But you aren't the one who will be deciding if it was a "good shoot." If you're on trail, someone who matters didn't think it was a "good shoot", and now it's not a "good shoot" unless your trial jury says so.
So things like the ammunition you used can become an issue when in the aftermath there's a dispute about whether the shooting was justified. The thing is that you can't know in advance whether, if you need to resort to your gun in self defense, your use of force will later be found to clearly have been justified. You will have to make your decision in an instant. The authorities will be able to take their sweet time investigating, analyzing and second guessing your decision.
Consider --
Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona thought he was justified. He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
Mark Abshire in Oaklahoma thought he was justified. Nonetheless, despite this happening on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted.
Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona, thought he was justified. But he was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
You don't have the final say. The reality is that sometimes there will be a disagreement about the question of your justification. Now it won't be a "good shoot" unless and until the trial jury says it is.
