Do you carry with your own reloads?

[Webleymkv]

OK, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV so the following is just my layman's observations after thinking a bit more about the issue:

I'm not really all that worried about a prosecutor trying to portray me as a bloodthirsty Rambo-wannabe because of handloads. It would seem to me that a prosecutor trying to make an issue out of my choice of gun or ammunition is doing so because he doesn't have anything more substantial to make a case from and is thus throwing anything he can against the wall to see what sticks. Such talk falls into the same vein as people who tell you not to use a revolver because you'll be labeled a Wyatt Earp-wannabe and not to use a magnum handgun because you'll be labeled a hunter of men.

The issue of gunshot residue is, however, a bit more relevant as the distance at which the shots were fired would seem to play a much more vital role in determining if a good shoot was indeed a good shoot. While the Bias case was not technically a case of self-defense, it does demonstrate that a court may not be willing to simply go on your word with regards to how your ammunition is loaded and at what distance it will leave GSR. Factory ammo, on the other hand is loaded to a certain specification by the manufacturer and as such will have third-party data upon which to rely.

While we often hear "a good shoot is a good shoot" I don't really think it's that simple. If you must go to trial, that means that the police and/or the DA already doesn't believe that it was indeed a "good shoot" otherwise you would not be facing charges in the first place. Claiming self-defense seems to be somewhat different that simply pleading "not guilty". A plea of "not guilty" is in essence saying "I did not do it and you must prove that I did". The burden of proof is placed solely on the prosecution in such a case. A plea of self-defense, on the other hand, is akin to saying "yes, I did it, but I had to because I was in fear for my life" in which case you must now demonstrate the "because I was in fear for my life" and GSR could feasibly make of break that demonstration.

In most cases, I concede that the use of handloads probably won't be an issue. However, the issues of GSR are significant enough to move concern over the use of handloads out of the realm of paranoid fantasy. In the grand scheme of things, I think the minor advantages of handloaded ammunition for self-defense are not significant enough to offset the dire, although unlikely, drawbacks.

 

[Edward429451]

Minor advantages? Let me guess, you do not reload.

Bias may have walked if the loads in his gun weren't so light? All this talk about GSR which was the issue. So if one ever might decide to carry handloads, one is advised to make them not so light. Factory duplication loads.

 

[acelaw]

"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."

This is exactly why I'm asking if there are other documented cases of handloads causing expert testimony on GSR evidence to be excluded.

So far, I see one case, with one judge where it was found inadmissible. Is there anything else out there or are we pretending that all judges rule the same on all evidentiary issues?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Minor advantages? Let me guess, you do not reload. ...

I do reload and have fired tens of thousands of my reloads for practice and in competition. But I've also fired tens of thousands of rounds of factory ammunition fully satisfactorily for practice and competition. And the factory self defense ammunition I've fired for testing purposes has also performed just fine.

..Bias may have walked if the loads in his gun weren't so light? All this talk about GSR which was the issue. So if one ever might decide to carry handloads, one is advised to make them not so light. Factory duplication loads.

Nope, whether the loads were light or heavy had no bearing on the evidentiary issue. even duplicating factory loads will not get into evidence your expert's testimony based on GSR testing of your handloads.

...are we pretending that all judges rule the same on all evidentiary issues?

No, we are not pretending that all judges will rule the same on all evidentiary issues. But it is the case that certain core principles of evidence relating to the admissibility of expert testimony based on scientific testing are pretty basic and will generally be applied consistently by different judges in different jurisdictions.

A core principle of the rules of evidence requires that an expert opinion based on a scientific test be relevant. And for that opinion to be relevant, it must be established that it is based on a controlled and scientifically valid test that in all material respects duplicates the situation that is the subject of the trial.

So when handloads were fired in the incident that is the subject of the trial, it now becomes difficult, if not impossible, to establish that the controlled test duplicates the incident. The defendant will not be able to establish to the satisfaction of the court that the rounds fired in the testing were substantially identical to the rounds fired in the incident. (se post 71 for a more detailed discussion.)

 

[kraigwy]

Shooting, any kind of shooting is 90%+ mental. The more you have on your mind the more you will have to interfere with the marksmanship fundamentals that come with muscle memory.

Shoot what you feel comfortable with. What ever makes you comfortable in the mind. In a self defense situation, you'll have more problems if you hesitate because you're worried what some lawyer will say about your ammo.


I'll not hash over the right or wrongs of either side, except to say, the problems in the Bias Case everyone is talking about in not a reloaded vs. factory ammo problem but a Lawyer problem.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the problems in the Bias Case everyone is talking about in not a reloaded vs. factory ammo problem but a Lawyer problem...

We're not concerned with all the problems in Bias. All that really matters for our purposes here is that expert opinion testimony based on Bias' expert's GSR testing of Bias' handloads was not admitted into evidence. That result was predictable and a natural consequence of certain core evidentiary principles.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

For the evidence crowd - can you come up with a gun fight that was lost by the civilian but could have been won with the right handload as compared to the civilian using a quality factory load?

Just wondering. We do have evidence that weapons characteristics affect trials. Do we have evidence that quality factory loads lose fights as compared to your home brew?

I'm willing to do the chi-square if you can come up with enough cases.

 

[Webleymkv]

Minor advantages? Let me guess, you do not reload.

Actually, I reload .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, 10mm Auto, 7.5x55 Swiss, and .45-70 ammo. My preferred self-defense weapons are .357 and .44 Magnum revolvers and I could not afford to practice with them as much as I feel I need to if I did not handload. Handloading for me is a means to produce ammunition which mimics the recoil and POI characteristics of my chosen factory defense loadings closely enough to be useful for practice.

Bias may have walked if the loads in his gun weren't so light? All this talk about GSR which was the issue. So if one ever might decide to carry handloads, one is advised to make them not so light. Factory duplication loads.

Factory duplication loads eh, OK, would you please tell me exactly what powder and the exact charge that Remington uses in their Express .357 Magnum 158grn semi-jacket hollowpoint loading? Or how about the exact load data that Speer uses for their 240grn Gold Dot .44 Magnum loading? Also, if you're going to duplicate a factory loading exactly, what exactly is the advantage of handloading your SD ammo? How exactly are you going to convince a jury that you precisely duplicated a factory loading?

 

[Sarge]

If you hesitate because your gun happens to be stoked with reloads on the day the balloon goes up, you could wind up very dead. The impetus for that hesitation resurfaces every time this topic comes up.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should carry reloads instead of factory loads.

I am saying if you need to save a life, use what you got.

 

[Webleymkv]

If you hesitate because your gun happens to be stoked with reloads on the day the balloon goes up, you could wind up very dead. The impetus for that hesitation resurfaces every time this topic comes up.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should carry reloads instead of factory loads.

I am saying if you need to save a life, use what you got.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that nothing at all is better than reloads. I'll defend myself with a pointed stick if that's all I've got at the moment. However, unless the "balloon goes up" at the range or while I'm hunting, my gun will not be stoked with handloads. Even during the ammo shortage of '08-'09, I still managed to keep at least a cylinder/magazine full of factory ammo for every single gun I own so that I'd have something other than handloads to use should the "ballooon go up".

 

[kraigwy]

We're not concerned with all the problems in Bias. All that really matters for our purposes here is that expert opinion testimony based on Bias' expert's GSR testing of Bias' handloads was not admitted into evidence.

And that Sir, is a case of bad lawyers.

 

[Spats McGee]

We're not concerned with all the problems in Bias. All that really matters for our purposes here is that expert opinion testimony based on Bias' expert's GSR testing of Bias' handloads was not admitted into evidence.

And that Sir, is a case of bad lawyers.

Not necessarily. The judge in the Bias case ruled as I would have expected. When the expert has to start with a questionable sample (questionable because it was made by, and based on claims of, the one guy in the world with the most incentive to fib), I would expect any judge to rule the expert's conclusions as being inherently unreliable and inadmissible.

 

[Spats McGee]

I am saying if you need to save a life, use what you got.

And I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that. If you happen to have the bad fortune to be attacked while reloads are in your gun, you use what you got. However, if you're sitting at home, and have time to contemplate which one you're going to put in your gun for EDC, I'd suggest that factory loads are the way to go.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We're not concerned with all the problems in Bias. All that really matters for our purposes here is that expert opinion testimony based on Bias' expert's GSR testing of Bias' handloads was not admitted into evidence.

And that Sir, is a case of bad lawyers.

Nope, not at all.

Lawyers are not magicians. We must work with what we have and within the rules. In some cases, as in Bias, what we have is not much. Core principles of the rules of evidence would predict that Bias' expert opinion testimony would not be admitted. His lawyer would nonetheless try, because a lawyer must zealously represent his/her client's interests.

Some arguments are losing arguments. We try them because we may have an ethical obligation to do so. But we certainly won't guarantee success. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, have I the law and the facts against me, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal -- and I will lose the argument.

 

[acelaw]

I have a trial starting tuesday where I'll be sounding like brass

 

[kraigwy]

Sorry folks, I'm a certified LE CSI instructor and have been deemed an expert in firearms by the Alaska courts.

I just don't buy it.

But like DI and Pistons, 9mm vs. 45s, minds will never be changed on the internet.

If you are really interested contact your state AG and Local Prosicuters, not the internet.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So far, I see one case, with one judge where it was found inadmissible. Is there anything else out there or are we pretending that all judges rule the same on all evidentiary issues?

One case.

FOUR trials ... plus appeals. The defendant's expert never got to testify, and the judge's disallowing said testimony was either not appealed (because it was based on solid legal ground) or the appeal did not prevail.

I wouldn't write it off too casually ...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We're not concerned with all the problems in Bias. All that really matters for our purposes here is that expert opinion testimony based on Bias' expert's GSR testing of Bias' handloads was not admitted into evidence.

And that Sir, is a case of bad lawyers.

Not at all. My field is not forensic science or ballistics, but I do serve as an expert witness. Expert witnesses are used for the purpose of reviewing and analyzing evidence, and then submitting an "expert" opinion as to what the evidence reviewed means in the context of the case.

If the evidence itself is tainted or unreliable, then any expert opinion an expert witness could provide would be potentially suspect, since it would be based on an unreliable foundation. Given that regardless of how meticulous Danial Bias's notes were there is simply no way to document that any of the other rounds found at his house matched, or that the death round was the same as any of the other rounds, why is it indicative of a poor attorney that the expert wasn't allowed to testify?

Fact is, it appears a lot of people on this forum agree that Bias was guilty. And yet his "bad" legal team managed to take it through four trials before the state got a conviction. I'd say the legal team did fairly well.

 

[Spats McGee]

Sorry folks, I'm a certified LE CSI instructor and have been deemed an expert in firearms by the Alaska courts.

I just don't buy it.

If you don't believe us, go ask a lawyer of your personal acquaintance to look into it. I'm not being snarky here, kraigwy. You seem like a decent enough guy, but I'm a lawyer and I'm licensed in the Arkansas state courts, federal courts, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I've done enough research on this issue to feel confident in my position on it. If I had to prosecute a shooting case with a handloader, I have absolutely no doubt but that I could get expert testimony based on a reload excluded.

As far as the "one case" issue . . . maybe there's only one case in which the judge found expert testimony based on the handloader's stuff to be inadmissible, but I've been unable to find any cases in which the handloader's stuff was found to be admissible.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sorry folks, I'm a certified LE CSI instructor and have been deemed an expert in firearms by the Alaska courts....

But that doesn't mean that it's ever been your job to argue for (or against) the admissibility of evidence. You do what you do, and you have the knowledge and skills that you have. But what you do is different from what lawyers have to do. And the skills and knowledge you have are different from the skills and knowledge a lawyer has.

...If you are really interested contact your state AG and Local Prosicuters,...

Why would anyone want to do something like that? Those are the lawyers for the State and for the county, respectively. They are not your lawyers. Their business is providing legal services and representation to the State and to the county.