I don't know who you're responding to because no one has used the words "grave legal danger" (or even any combination of words that could reasonably be construed to have similar meaning) anywhere on this thread.So, you are telling me that a person who down loads .44 magnum ammo to something like a +p .44 special would be in grave legal danger for using these rounds for home defense?
I don't know why you think I'm upset. I did assume that you triple-emphasized those particular words because you felt they were important or meaningful in some way, as opposed to triple-emphasizing some randomly selected part of your post.It seems my simultaneous use of the bold, italics, and underline function have upset you, John.
Whether or not the legal danger is "grave" is a value judgment folks will need to make. But there is a real legal danger if GSR test results are important to your defense and if because you used handloads you can't get expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing into evidence....It's been made quite clear that the main point of this entire issue is that using factory ammunition for carry/home defense is a small price to pay to eliminate a risk that, while improbable, could be quite bothersome if it came to fruition. I dont' think that's what most people think when they say or hear "grave legal danger".
Nate, I don't want to appear troublesome, but the questions you're asking have been answered multiple times in the various threads to which Spats and pax have linked.nate45 said:'m not arguing here and don't want a debate. You say you are a lawyer and I just want to ask you a few questions....
Remaining in the firearm: That's part of the crime scene, and testing it would result in destruction of evidence. A big no-no.nate45 said:. . . .If someone shoots someone, with handloaded ammunition and there is a GSR issue involved. Why couldn't the remaining ammunition with the firearm, or the partial box, bag or whatever the person had at home be used as evidence? . . . .
For the same reason as above: evidence created by the defendant. It's not a question of how good or consistent the reloader is, nor how good his records are.nate45 said:. . . .If a person loaded a hundred rounds in virgin brass and carefully weighed each load. Why would that ammo be inconsistent or not provide good testing material?
That's an attack that can be made by defense counsel. If the defendant suspects that the factory load is inconsistent from other lots, he should, by all means, talk to his attorney about that! It wouldn't be hard to get a box or two from a different lot and have them tested.nate45 said:. . . .Also, one lot of factory ammo could differ from another lot. If the forensic lab only uses ammo, that is like yours and not those, that actually were yours. What's to say that the different lot of ammo, even if it is factory and the same bullet and load, would provide reliable GSR results?
It's not a matter of how meticulous a reloader is, nor how well he or she keeps records of the loads created. The Rules of Evidence just won't let you get that stuff in. It's evidence created by the defendant.nate45 said:. . . .I'm not advocating handloads for defense, I just find it perplexing that with all the small boutique/designer defense ammo companies there are and all the commercial reloaders, how ones own carefully constructed handloads could be so different.
The whole way the term reloads is used in the debate, conjures up images of haphazardly constructed, oddly assorted once, or thrice fired brass and miss weighed powder charges.
If you're claiming self-defense, you're probably going to have to testify anyway. SD is an affirmative defense, which means that the shooter's story is, in essence, "Yeah, I shot him, but I had a really good reason."nate45 said:. . . .The point about giving up your fifth amendment right if you had to testify about your handloads was a good one. Besides the possible biasing of the jury with the possible prosecutorial claim that you needed extra deadly ammunition. The giving up the fifth possibility, is one of the most compelling reasons not to use handloads for defense I've seen.
Spats is, of course, correct in saying that the location of the shooting will not impinge upon the legal issues:Posted by Willie Lowman: I was asking if this conversation was in regard to shootings in the home or out in the street.
Spats answered my question quite clearly. Thank you.
It's not a matter of the location of the shoot. The rules of evidence remain the same, whether it's at your home, or downtown. As other posters have pointed out, there's a particular constellation of events under which this issue rears its head:
1) A shooting;
2) in which handloads were used; and
3) the now-defendant needs GSR evidence to establish distance.
As a practical matter, I think that you are correct. When the shooting happens in the shooter's home, and the person shot was previously unkown to the shooter, I think that a jury is more likely to believe that the shooting was SD. I think that's particularly true if there's evidence of a forcible entry. For that matter, I think that the police and prosecutor are also more likely to believe SD under those circumstances, as well.OldMarksman said:. . . .I may have created some confusion here in referring to the likelihood of higher risk in the case of a defensive shooting that occurred "in the out of doors in the absence of evidence of an unlawful forced entry". Let me explain.
My thought is, if one is forced to use a firearm inside his own residence after an unlawful and forcible entry, the likelihood that a defense of justification will be thrown into question by contradictory testimony or other evidence, and in particular the likelihood that GSR patterns will prove pivotal, would probably be lower than if the shooting had occurred somewhere else.
It's not a matter of the location of the shoot. The rules of evidence remain the same, whether it's at your home, or downtown. As other posters have pointed out, there's a particular constellation of events under which this issue rears its head:
1) A shooting;
2) in which handloads were used; and
3) the now-defendant needs GSR evidence to establish distance.
Thanks, Spats. I was just out of gas last night, I'm afraid. Let me add a few comments yours.Spats McGee said:While fiddletown is correct in saying that this path is well trod, I'll go down it just a little this morning....
In addition to the issues Spats mentioned regarding spoilage of evidence and the fact that the evidence was manufactured by the defendant, there will always be the question whether the ammunition tested was actually identical to the ammunition fired.nate45 said:. . . .If someone shoots someone, with handloaded ammunition and there is a GSR issue involved. Why couldn't the remaining ammunition with the firearm, or the partial box, bag or whatever the person had at home be used as evidence? . . . .
Often it will be possible to establish what lot of factory ammunition was used. I keep partial boxes of the ammunition I load into magazines for defensive purposes. And ammunition makers keep back quantities of each lot. So as long as I can identify the lot the ammunition I used in self defense came from, I will probably be able to have my expert test exemplars from that same batch.nate45 said:. . . .Also, one lot of factory ammo could differ from another lot. If the forensic lab only uses ammo, that is like yours and not those, that actually were yours. What's to say that the different lot of ammo, even if it is factory and the same bullet and load, would provide reliable GSR results?...
Posted by fiddletown: ...with factory ammunition from a major manufacturer, one would be able to introduce evidence regarding that manufacturer's quality control procedures. Manufacturers will have written quality control standards and testing protocols, and they will maintain logs of quality control testing. Because the manufacturer is an uninvolved third party, and because such records are routinely kept for its own business purposes, such records will be admissible as business records and have credibility.