Do you carry with your own reloads?

[Spats McGee]

So... if im ever in a situation where I'm loading powderpuff rounds and my defense will be that the victim committed suicide and the GSR from the handloads would prove it, I could be in trouble.

No. If you're ever in any shooting, use handloads, and need to use GSR evidence to verify your story, you could have an extra problem on your hands.

So let's cut to the chase on this. Bias' troubles run a lot deeper than the fact that he merely had reloads in the gun.

Yes, they did. By using handloads, though, he deprived himself of one possible defensive argument. He was not convicted solely because he used handloads, but the use of handloads prevented his expert testimony from getting in front of the jury.

Comparing an accidental discharge/murder/suicide whatever you want to call it is a whole different thing in self-defense. When pulling a gun in self-defense you are deliberately firing live rounds at an attacker posing an imminent threat. Whether its reloads or not, like others have said, a good shoot will be a good shoot. I dont get how you can make lethal force more lethal...

It's not a matter of making lethal force more lethal. It's a matter of getting evidence in front of the jury. The rules of evidence are consistent across case types. Whether the case is civil or criminal, divorce case or murder charge, the rules of evidence remain the same.

Re: "a good shoot is a good shoot." -- The problem with this line of thought is that it is not the shooter who makes that call. A good shoot is a good shoot, if the police and prosecutor agree that it was a good shoot. If there is any question about how it went down, then it's only a good shoot after it's been reviewed by the police, prosecutor, and possibly a judge and jury.

Re: "my handloads are more accurate." -- I, for one, have absolutely no doubts about what a skilled handloader can do. Even though I don't handload (no place for it), I do not doubt for one minute whether a good handloader can produce a cartridge that will outperform most factory loads. But I do question how much additional accuracy can be wrung out of a pistol cartridge under realistic self-defense conditions. IOW, let's look at how much tighter of a group can the handload produce at 7 yds? Then let's look at how much tighter the group will be at 7 yds, fired in twilight and while on the move. Is there really enough of a difference to warrant the additional risk?

Re: "my handloads are cheaper." -- I buy that, too. I do not buy that reloading can save you so much money that it makes fiscal sense to balance that against an attorney's time, and that of an expert.

* the BG survived; or It would be very big stretch to link your load to this issue in any way that is realistic.

Nope. I can do it in about 10 seconds. If the BG survives, he will dispute your version of the story. He may well claim that he was further away from you than you claim, and that he was acting in a non-threatening way. Being able to introduce expert evidence that shows that the BG was 5 feet away, instead of 25 feet away, could prove helpful. It will also lend credence to the rest of your tale. Is that realistic enough?

* the BG survived and wants $$; or True for all things legal. Lots of people sue for lots of reasons, and anything in life you do from the time you get up to the time you go to bed can lead to a civil suit. Do we go through the day worrying about it? Also, some states have preemptive laws preventing this from occurring, should SD be found justified.

(Emphasis supplied to separate my post from that of .357SIG) Some states do, some states don't. Using handloads can deprive you of the potential for that expert testimony in both criminal and civil arena. Why would you voluntarily deprive your attorney of an additional piece of evidence?

There is no question about whether it's the shooter's conduct that's at issue. It most certainly is. Nobody has ever been convicted for using handloads, because that's not a crime. It's also true that this will come up in a limited variety of cases. However, it always has the potential to rear its head. Neither you, nor I, have any clue when we may be involved in an SD shooting. We all hope that we never are. But the reality is that either the BG or witnesses (even friendly ones) may give information different from our statements. The police or prosecutors may look at it and think, "that doesn't sound right." Either way, expert GSR testimony could come into play. To my mind, keeping that potential avenue open is worth the cost of a few boxes of quality factory SD ammo.

 

[Spats McGee]

Again, if you need expert testimony, then something threw up a red flag during investigation. Stay within the confines of the law and don't get hot-headed or mouthy before the incident; then things will go a different way. Change it to a diesel truck and homemade biodiesel...does this have any bearing on a normal, run-of-the-mill car wreck? I think not. If you want to claim something absurd, like the fuel made you wreck, then it might come into play.

I missed this the first time around. Otherwise I would have responded in my last post. Sorry about that.

My example may sound absurd, but it's not as far out as it might sound. The similarity is in the fact that the item that will need to be tested (handloads or fuel) is something that is consumed in the "event giving rise to the action." It's something that the expert would be required to replicate, based on the assertions of the defendant. If we're talking a bout 3.5-lb triggers, or pistons, that's something that won't be destroyed in the event and can be objectively tested without relying on the defendant to be honest.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

the reason it's not the best idea to carry your own reloads is they won't have the same consistency, or reliability as quality factory loads.

Almost everyone who reloads produces ammunition that is equal to or better than most factory ammo with regard to both consistency and reliability. The reason all these attorney types here are advising against handloads for self defense is due to evidentiary concerns, not the consistency or reliability of the ammunition.

 

[jmortimer]

"In all these years of heated internet arguments, NO ONE has ever come up with a case where the courts DID accept the words or self-generated loading records of the handloader when gunshot residue evidence to determine distance became an issue in load testing."

And in "all these years" no one has ever been convicted of a crime for using reloads in self-defense and probably never will. Show me the case where a court accepted any ballistic evidence on the issue of reloads or excluded ballistic evidence on reloads in a case of self-defense - right you can't. When someone is self-interested in an issue like anthropomorphic global warming or the issue in question, facts are stubborn things, and if you are invested in an issue you will do anything to "protect" your "theory." This theory is such a non-issue that the proponents of the "theory" resort to a crazy-a$$ case involving a convicted killer and liar who claimed his wife killed herself and the case has nothing to do with self-defense. Again here is some perspective 4-11-06 by Shawn Dodson at Firearms Tactical http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm Hard to have an argument with a sacred cow.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There's little point in arguing with people who will argue with a court recognized expert in the field on a topic that actually provides no advantage to the carrier beyond the cost difference in the ammunition.

Carrying your reloads is foolhardy and pointless. Even if there's a 1 in a million chance of it being a problem, is it really worth it for the $10 cost difference of a box of ammo compared to reloads?

If it is to you, do it. It's that simple.

I'll spend the extra $10 and negate all those questions.

 

[Spats McGee]

"In all these years of heated internet arguments, NO ONE has ever come up with a case where the courts DID accept the words or self-generated loading records of the handloader when gunshot residue evidence to determine distance became an issue in load testing."

And in "all these years" no one has ever been convicted of a crime for using reloads in self-defense and probably never will. Show me the case where a court accepted any ballistic evidence on the issue of reloads or excluded ballistic evidence on reloads in a case of self-defense - right you can't.

Did you read the stuff about Daniel Bias?

When someone is self-interested in an issue like anthropomorphic global warming or the issue in question, facts are stubborn things, and if you are invested in an issue you will do anything to "protect" your "theory." This theory is such a non-issue that the proponents of the "theory" resort to a crazy-a$$ case involving a convicted killer and liar who claimed his wife killed herself and the case has nothing to do with self-defense.

Whether it's a gangland shooting, a suicide, or a self-defense shooting, the rules of evidence remain the same.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Believe it or not, the state is not out to get everyone for any reason.

I wish I could believe that ... but I can't. Police officers are human beings. Some are good, some are bad. There are some would are willing to manufacture evidence, or overlook potentially exculpatory evidence, in order to help "solve" a crime or improve their arrest record. One hopes they are in the minority, but they exist. If one of those is assigned to your case, good luck.

A goodly number of years ago, in the city nearby, a young woman was murdered in a parking garage. The police early on zeroed in on a particular young man as what today would be called "a person of interest." Back then, he was "the prime suspect." So much so that he was arrested, then released, then harassed for many years by the police. He consistently maintained his innocence, and the lead detective on the case steadfastly maintained, right up to the day he retired, that this young man had done it. Which is why the detective and his associates failed to energetically pursue many leads and tips. After all, they "knew" who did it, so they were interested only in leads that supported their theory.

Problem is, more than twenty years later (and after the lead detective had retired), a coincidence yielded a DNA sample from a much older man in a different (but in the same state) city that matched DNA from the crime scene. When he was appropriately investigated, sufficient evidence was developed (ever after twenty-plus years) to obtain a conviction.

I don't believe the police set out to intentionally frame the young man. They sincerely believed they had the perp identified. And that created "tunnel vision" on their part, causing them to stress some evidence and to ignore other evidence, and to expend too much energy trying to prove that their pre-identified guilty guy was guilty, when they could have been looking elsewhere and perhaps found the real perp a lot sooner.

Another case would be the guy who was arrested as a bomber at the Atlanta Olympics (Richard Jewel, I think?). It took him years to clear his name.

So .. sorry, but I don't accept that the police aren't out to "get" anyone. Sometimes they are, and if you are the gettee, that's unfortunate for you if you also happen to be innocent.

 

[Sarge]

In all these years of heated internet arguments, NO ONE has ever come up with a case where the courts DID accept the words or self-generated loading records of the handloader when gunshot residue evidence to determine distance became an issue in load testing.

First of all, this discussion has been far from heated and there is no reason to represent it as such. The mods here simply won't allow it.

In the 40 or so years since John Boehm presented his micrographs of GSR, there have doubtless been cases where the shooter used reloaded rifle, pistol or shotgun ammunition- not to mention those involving muzzle-loaders. Trial judges listen to arguments, objections and then allow whatever they're going to allow.Their decisions may, of course, be overturned on appeal.

My educated guess is that GSR was a factor in some of those cases and the court did allow the testimony of the person who loaded the cartridge, shell or black powder or substitute into the firearm involved. My educated opinion is that the reason we don't hear about them is because as in this case, it is but one component of evidence to be considered by the triers of fact. In most of those cases, I'd speculate that it was not THE component that decided innocence or guilt. Just like in this one.

The few jurors I have polled after a verdict tended believe the state's evidence- but they were equally concerned about whether or not a particular witness's testimony was believable. If the jurors in Bias were polled after the verdict, I for one would sure like to hear what they had to say.

The simple fact is that if your defensive use of deadly force is justified under the law, we will probably never hear what you used to defend yourself with unless the newsies find it sensational. If your state's castle doctrine law has a provision which prevents civil or criminal prosecution for justified uses of force, the likelihood of it generating case law is essentially nonexistent.

Now if you stab your wife with a hedge trimmer and try to tell us she was spiked by a marlin that jumped out of the swimming pool... that's a little different story.

Regarding your 'NO ONE has ever come up with a case' statement... you can beat that drum all you want but unless the use of reloads (or GSR of same) was the deciding factor in that case, you are essentially asking us to prove a negative to make a point. No layman is going to invest the time and money and no legal professional is going to do it if the meter ain't running.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So... if im ever in a situation where I'm loading powderpuff rounds and my defense will be that the victim committed suicide and the GSR from the handloads would prove it, I could be in trouble....

Nope, I don't see that happening, so I don't see you getting in trouble that way.

Where you could more easily get into trouble would be if you shot someone using your handloads. You claim it was self defense, but the DA disagrees, charges you and brings you to trial. Now you will have to put on evidence establishing that your use of lethal force was justified.

And it might be the case that expert opinion based on GSR test results will be very useful to you in establishing your defense and getting you exonerated. But since you used handloads, you will not be able to get that expert opinion into evidence.

...I wouldn't personally be concerned about carrying reloads. The situation where you *may* find yourself in trouble is so rare that it's not worth worrying about IMO.

Needing to use your gun in self defense is very rare. Yet many of us still keep guns, because the consequences of not being able to defend yourself are pretty dire. And if we are charged and tried as a result of our use of our gun in self defense and then can't establish self defense to the juries satisfaction, the consequences to us are also pretty dire.

Now you might not need expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing. But you have no way of knowing ahead of time whether or not you will. If you can get by without it, that's fine. But if you wind up needing it and have used handloads, you've foreclosed the possibility of using such testimony in your defense.

Now it does happen that expert opinion testimony based on GSR test results has been important to some people trying to support their claim of justification in their defense against criminal charges.

[1] As I noted in post 71, Marty Hayes, a member here, has been engaged to do such testing and give such testimony to help someone on trial support his claim of self defense.

[2] In about 1990, police Corporal Randy Willems of he Davenport, Iowa PD was able to successfully show he shot his accuser in self defense, and thus win acquittal, because he used factory ammunition and was able to introduce into evidence expert opinion based on GSR testing that supported his story. Here's what Massad Ayoob said about that case, as quoted by Bartholomew Roberts in this post:

....Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems

A man attempted to disarm and murder Corporal Randy Willems of the Davenport, IA Police Department, screaming “Give me your (expletive deleted) gun, I’ll blow your (expletive deleted) brains out.” Willems shot him during the third disarming attempt, dropping him instantly with one hit to the abdomen from a department issue factory round, Fiocchi 9mm 115 grain JHP +P+. The subject survived and stated that the officer had shot him for nothing from a substantial distance away. GSR testing showed conclusively that the subject’s torso was approximately 18” from the muzzle of the issue Beretta 92 when it discharged. Randy was acquitted of criminal charges in the shooting at trial in 1990. Two years later, Randy and his department won the civil suit filed against them by the man who was shot.

I use this case when discussing handloads because it is a classic example of how the replicability of factory ammunition, in the forensic evidence sense, can annihilate false allegations by the “bad guy” against the “good guy” who shot him. The records of State of Iowa v. Corporal Randy Willems are archived in the Iowa District Court in Scott County, Davenport, Iowa. Those from the civil suit, Karwoski v. Willems and the City of Davenport, should be at the Iowa Civil Court of Scott County, also located in Davenport, Iowa....

[3] Of course it's up to you whether you choose to take whatever risks the use of handloads for self defense might entail. Those risks may be small, but the question is whether you gain enough by using handloads to take even a tiny risk.

Personally, I see absolutely nothing to be gained by using handloads, so I don't see any point in accepting even a small additional risk by using them. Handloads can only be a problem if I use them, and I take them completely off the table by not using them.

If you still want to use handloads for self defense, be my guest. It won't be my problem.

...My point is not to say that it can never, or will never, come up in court, but that most SD cases never get this far, or this detailed. Follow a simple set of rules, and you will probably never see the inside of a courtroom:

• do not shoot unless you have fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another,
• do not lie to the investigators on the scene;
• do not allow your conduct just prior to the incident become an item of question for the investigators.

...

But sometimes people who have followed those rules, or believed that they have followed those rules, have still wound up in court and needed to establish that their use of lethal force was legally justified. One may believe he has followed those rules, and it may turn out that he has, but it has happened that the DA and/or grand jury has still disagreed; and now he must establish in court his justification for using lethal force.

You have no way of knowing ahead of time whether in your incident everyone who matters agrees that you have followed those rules. If they don't, you'll be on trial and will have a whole lot of problems. Handloads will be one of those problems only if you used them.

Personally, I'd rather eliminate any wild cards I can ahead of time.

And BTW, your rules are wrong. Your first rule should not be, "do not shoot unless you have fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another." It should be, "do not shoot unless a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances would have fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another."

The standard applied in the law is a "reasonable person", objective standard. You might have been in genuine fear for your life, but if the DA thinks he can prove your fear wasn't warranted and you overreacted, you're going to trial. And if you were in genuine fear for your life, but your trial jury is convinced that your fear wasn't reasonable, you're going to jail.

...And in "all these years" no one has ever been convicted of a crime for using reloads in self-defense and probably never will. Show me the case where a court accepted any ballistic evidence on the issue of reloads or excluded ballistic evidence on reloads in a case of self-defense...

[1] We've shown you a case in which offered ballistic evidence was excluded because handloads were used and explain how the rules of evidence work. The rules of evidence work exactly the same way in this regard whether or not self defense is involved.

[2] In this post I've shown you a case in which expert opinion based on GSR testing was admitted into evidence because known factory ammunition was used, and that evidence was crucial to exonerating a man who defended his life.

[3] The threshold question is how often have handloaded ammunition has 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 handloads compared with factory ammunition?", or "Is a private citizen who shoots someone and claims self defense more likely to be convicted at trial if he used handloads compared with 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 handloads. I suggest that the vast majority of people who keep guns for self defense aren't enthusiasts and use commercial ammunition. Indeed, even many of the members here, who are enthusiasts, use 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 handloads 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 handloads; and only a few of those wind up in trial; and only a portion of those go up on appeal.

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.

...Again here is some perspective 4-11-06 by Shawn Dodson at Firearms Tactical...

Dodson's personal animus for Massad Ayoob is well known. Dodson's claims have been refuted here and here.

 

[jmortimer]

"Dodson's personal anumus for Massad Ayoob is well known. Dodson's claims have been refuted here and here."
Disagree, the links are the subject of the Firearms Tactical article and the facts have not been refuted and the links are self-serving, pre-date the Firearms Tactical article and not written by a third party.

 

[Frank Ettin]

"Dodson's personal anumus for Massad Ayoob is well known. Dodson's claims have been refuted here and here."
Disagree, the links are the subject of the Firearms Tactical article and the facts have not been refuted and the links are self-serving, pre-date the Firearms Tactical article and not written by a third party.

The links take one to Massad Ayoob's responses to Dobson's claims. Dodson's claims are self serving and not made by a third party.

 

[jmortimer]

Disagree. Done and post # 36 is reality
"I attended a "Use of Lethal Force" workshop put together by a local gun shop, the sheriff's department, District Attorney's office, a circuit court judge and attorneys who would represent both the defense and the prosecution. When asked the question regarding reloads and self defense they all agreed that it was a minor point. It isn't the ammo that gets people in trouble, it's the fact that they talk to police without the benefit of an attorney being present during questioning."

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by .357SIG: If you go to court, there is something questionable about your conduct during the incident.

Absolutely untrue. It simply means either that you have not been able to produce evidence supporting a claim of justification, or that there is other evidence that seems to contradict that claim. Testimony by the person you shot and his accomplice would most probably suffice.

Follow a simple set of rules, and you will probably never see the inside of a courtroom:

• do not shoot unless you have fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another,
• do not lie to the investigators on the scene;
• do not allow your conduct just prior to the incident become an item of question for the investigators.

That's only if you can produce at least some evidence that your act had been justified under the law, and the state produces no evidence to the contrary. Unless there is evidence to indicate that you fired only when you had a reasonable belief that doing so had been immediately necessary to defined against imminent danger, it will not be at all clear that that's what happened. What will be clear is that you shot someone with your firearm. His testimony is most unlikely to agree with yours.

One of the facts that the state may introduce into evidence may be the lack of GSR on the person shot (the "victim", if you are on trial as the defendant). That evidence may be used to cast doubt upon your testimony about the distance at which the shooting took place.

Should that become important, your case (or your efforts to avoid court in the first place) may depend upon GSR testing of your ammunition.

If you have used handloads, or remanufactured ammunition produced by someone without ISO certification, the investigators will not accept the results of that testing, and if it goes to court, the prosecution will move to have the judge rule against the admittance of the evidence.

Again, if you need expert testimony, then something threw up a red flag during investigation.

...such as your bullet holes in someone else. That usually indicates that a crime has been committed. You are than on the hook to mount a defense of justification.

I think that studying this would be worth your while.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...post # 36 is reality
"I attended a "Use of Lethal Force" workshop put together by a local gun shop, the sheriff's department, District Attorney's office, a circuit court judge and attorneys who would represent both the defense and the prosecution. When asked the question regarding reloads and self defense they all agreed that it was a minor point. It isn't the ammo that gets people in trouble, it's the fact that they talk to police without the benefit of an attorney being present during questioning."

I'd be curious to know how you know that post #36 by dajowi is "reality" -- except that obviously you want it to be.

And of course, we don't know exactly what the question that was asked was, nor exactly how it was answered.

And if you're on trial and claiming self defense, would you really even want an entirely avoidable minor point possibly standing between you and acquittal? I wouldn't. I'd want to have eliminated ahead of time every minor point I reasonably could. In the world of a trial, the end result is often based on an accumulation of a several minor points which, taken together, become a major point.

And if you can't get into evidence helpful expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing, a minor point could become a very major point. If Cpl. Randy Willems hadn't been able to, he might have gone to jail instead of being acquitted.

 

[Don Glock]

Almost everyone who reloads produces ammunition that is equal to or better than most factory ammo with regard to both consistency and reliability. i disagree.

The reason all these attorney types here are advising against handloads for self defense is due to evidentiary concerns, not the consistency or reliability of the ammunition. i agree lol yet they cannot point out a single case where a fella went to prison because he loaded his own self defense ammo that was used in a shooting. kinda the same argument as punisher slide plate covers for glocks lol

......

 

[acelaw]

How many documented cases have excluded expert testimony on GSR (or anything else) due to the use of reloads?

 

[.357SIG]

Quote:
Originally Posted by .357SIG
* the BG survived; or It would be very big stretch to link your load to this issue in any way that is realistic.
Nope. I can do it in about 10 seconds. If the BG survives, he will dispute your version of the story. He may well claim that he was further away from you than you claim, and that he was acting in a non-threatening way. Being able to introduce expert evidence that shows that the BG was 5 feet away, instead of 25 feet away, could prove helpful. It will also lend credence to the rest of your tale. Is that realistic enough?

If you have consistent reloads, with powder measured to-the-grain (most of us have it to the tenth-of-a-grain, so not hard to do), I don't see this guaranteed to be an issue. Mr. Bias had such wildly-varying loads, it would not be possible to use them. Has anyone's reloaded ammunition ever been allowed in court? That is the question, which, when answered, can mean this topic is either a "mountain" (more a foothill, really) or a "mole hill" made to look like a mountain. There are other ways to prove things without powder residue, but it does make things easier, I'll agree. There is still a burden of proof in a court case (more so in criminal cases than civil, but it's there).

Anyone can probably find a court case on any topic to scare someone. I'm sure it could be argued that someone has been sued for stepping outside the crosswalk when crossing the street, and had to endure financial loss and stress because of it, even if they win. Does that mean we should be unnecessarily scared-to-death to walk outside the white painted line on the street at all times? Come on, man...it's irrational.

The biggest problem with these topics are people drawing false conclusions from very little research on the issue. What happened in the grand scheme of things in the cited case? What is the overall trend in other cases? How big of a part does your issue really play in the case itself? A level-headed approach should be taken on issues such as this, otherwise it can make people look foolish. Same goes for a caliber war, same goes for gun modifications. If you (a general "you", not directed at any one person) do not have enough information to back your claim, but rely on what "could happen" (but almost never has happened), it does not look good...it looks foolish, and makes the people involved look unprofessional. You would never write an analysis with such little information, or heavily-biased opinion, so why would you present it to anyone else like that?

Again, understand I am not singling people out, or trying to insult anyone, but I have to make my point. I respect the opinions of the people involved here, and feel valid points are made. I just question how much emphasis is being put on these points.

 

[jct61765]

A good shoot is a good shoot. I am a student of Massad Ayoob. I've been through LFI and have read everything he writes. If he says not to use handloads for defense, there has to be something to it. He is a professional witness, for good reason. He knows his ****. Besides, to save a few dollars? Not worth it. Sadly, there will be some DA's that will be aggressive and try and make a name for themselves. Why give them something to work against you?

 

[OldMarksman]

acelaw: How many documented cases have excluded expert testimony on GSR (or anything else) due to the use of reloads?

There is no way to find that out.

however, GSR pattern evidence will be excluded if reloads have been used.

The point is, if one needs to have such evidence admitted, under the rules of admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence, evidence from factory ammunition can be admitted, but evidence from handloads will not meet the standards for admissibility.

Different states have different rules; some use the Daubert rule, some still use the Frye rule, and some use their own; however, the differencess do not affect the subject at hand.

These rules are well established in the court system, and as has been said previously, they apply to all kinds of cases. My training in the subject some years ago had to do with how to ensure compliance with the then new Daubert rule in assuring the admissibility of computer-generated financial reports. Virtually everything we were taught would apply to a case involving GSR.

Evaluation of GSR evidence is a rather routine part of forensic testing after a shooting. It is usually done to prove that someone has recently fired a gun, but sometimes it is done to evaluate whether a shot was fired at close range.

If you have fired at someone in self defense within your home at a person with whom you have never dealt before who had broken into your home , GSR evidence will not come into play except perhaps as an investigative formality. It is when the shooting occurs outdoors at short range and there is either a scarcity of evidence or contradictory evidence that it an make a difference.

The likelihood that one will ever fire at anyone is very remote; however, when a shooting has occurred outdoors it is possible that GSR evidence may prove crucial. The likelihood is low but the potential consequences cannot be overstated.

.357SIG: If you have consistent reloads, with powder measured to-the-grain (most of us have it to the tenth-of-a-grain, so not hard to do), I don't see this guaranteed to be an issue.

OK, but a judge would.

 

[Frank Ettin]

How many documented cases have excluded expert testimony on GSR (or anything else) due to the use of reloads?

We know that defense expert testimony on GSR was excluded in Bias because handloads were use. And lawyers understand how the rules of evidence operated in Bias to exclude that testimony. And lawyers also understand how the rules of evidence would operate in other cases to also exclude such testimony.

The related question is: In how many cases in which GSR testing was an issue were handloads used? It appears that the answer is very, very few.

Some things just don't happen often.

...What happened in the grand scheme of things in the cited case? What is the overall trend in other cases? How big of a part does your issue really play in the case itself?...

The thing is that you can't know ahead of time how big an issue something might be in the case that someday happens to you. You simply don't know what might happen with you nor how it might happen. And how a particular issue played out in a past case might not mean much about how that issue will play out in yours, because there might be important differences.

But what you can do ahead of time is eliminate avoidable uncertainties. You might not know how big an issue the use of handloads will be in your case, if it ever happens. But it won't be any kind of an issue if you don't use handloads.