Reloads for Personal Defence

[Hook686]

I'll keep my gun stoked with factory fodder since I live in a state ruled by liberals (just look at the majority of the voters here in Cali), therefore I refuse to give any additional doubt to a jury pool with the collective IQ of a gnat.

Did you graduate from UC Berkely in law ? Have you actually done a study, or do you just enjoy bashing other people ?

I carry factory ammunition in my J-Frame simply because the 5th round occasionly has jumped crimp and causes a problem. Factory rounds have never caused that problem.

If it isn't ammunition used, it would be some other 'Fear' subjective a lawyer will use to try and influence the jury to gain a favorable conviction. That is their job.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Cease and desist commentary on snarky comments on liberals, IQ - etc.

As Pax stated we want to keep this on more sophisticated level.

If you see something, you think is not doing this - report this rather than respond.

 

[nate45]

Okay, let us proceed on the presumption that whatever supply of handloads the defendant had at home were disallowed, due to evidentiary rules, chain of custody, etc.

Then why is testing a small sample of the ammunition with the firearm, or on the defendants person at the time of the shooting 'destruction of evidence'?

Testing a small sample of crime scene blood, or other fluids for DNA isn't deemed destruction of evidence. In fact I can absolutely, point to at least a few cases, I personally know of, where the original blood samples were completely used while testing for DNA matches.

I fail to see how testing two, or three rounds of spare ammo, out of even only 5-10 that remained would be ruled destruction of evidence. While at the same time, destroying biological crime scene evidence is allowed.

 

[kraigwy]

I've made my opinions made on this subject, have not changed my mind and there is no reason to re-state them.

However I can address the "destruction of evidence by testing" comments.

I've been involved in CSI for a long time, more in the lines of explosives and firearms. For the sake of argument, or keeping arguments form occuring, I'll only address the explosive part, but the procedure is the same.

When we discover a explosive device, (called IEDs now). You have a problem in court. If the device hadn't exploded, you still have to use the device as evidence. Skipping the danger aspect of a live device, you have to prove its a destructive device or prove that in fact it is a bomb. Can't do that without destroying it.

If you destroy it, (blow it up) then you have the problem of destroying evidence.

That's in theory. In reality, no one expects you to keep a bomb as evidence. You are however expected to prove its a bomb.

So whats to do:

Simple, its called filming. You take all sorts of pictures of the device, then you film the destruction of the device. Then you do a post blast investigation, gattering all the little pieces you can find. By now you have enough information to build the same bomb, only without the explosives.

Its not really that hard. And I have never ever heard of any such procedure being not allowed in court.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Nate45: I fail to see how testing two, or three rounds of spare ammo, out of even only 5-10 that remained would be ruled destruction of evidence.

That's really not the most significant issue.

The real problem is that, unless the "spare ammo" had in fact been manufactured by a reputable third party with appropriate procedures for independently maintaining manufacturing, inspection, and lot acceptance test records, the results of testing those rounds would almost certainly not be admissible under the rules in effect today (see posts 31, 35, 39, and 40).

Secondarily, it is quite possible that the results of testing only two or three rounds would not be conclusive, either because the number of data points would be insufficient or because they would not demonstrate convincingly that the results were reliably repeatable, or both.

 

[HKFan9]

In my close personal shooting circle there are a few lawyers, 2 former Green Berets of the 5th, and a Marine who was Force Recon, another gentleman who is a LEO and shooting instructor.

All of them told me to carry factory ammo, for already stated reasons, so I do.

I keep the reloads for practice,hunting, and competition.

As Pax helpfully suggested, you can reload to match the specs of your desired commercial carry load pretty easily to practice more affordable with.

I will say I have had unfortunate experiences in my life where I have been shot at, fortunately no one was mortally injured, I didn't even fire any shots in the 3 difference instances my life was at stake. I was grazed on the leg, I have also been stabbed, and had a beer bottled smashed across my jaw. I did not fire in any of them because it was quicker and easier for me to escape., except in the event of the beer bottle where I was forced to stand my ground against 6 people. Luckily this was in a very populated area, and police responded in literally seconds. I was working at the time, and was not able to carry a firearm. I have been extremely lucky.

These instances do not make me an expert at all... do I think if I used handloads that I would end up in prison in a SD shooting... probably not. However... I want to do everything in my power to have a solid defense against being locked up for an otherwise justifiable shooting, so I use factory ammo. A lawyer will come at you any angle they can, I want to give them the least possible angles.

Ayoob IS a professional, often times called in to testify..... I would hold his word above all others.

Not everyone are firearms experts... look at the media hype in the Winchester Black Talon ammo.... that has a bad enough rap.... wait to the lawyers find out you used "Hand crafted special evil diabolic home made extra lethal incendiary hot hand loads" in your "evil black Glock".

 

[Spats McGee]

Okay, let us proceed on the presumption that whatever supply of handloads the defendant had at home were disallowed, due to evidentiary rules, chain of custody, etc.

Then why is testing a small sample of the ammunition with the firearm, or on the defendants person at the time of the shooting 'destruction of evidence'?

Testing a small sample of crime scene blood, or other fluids for DNA isn't deemed destruction of evidence. In fact I can absolutely, point to at least a few cases, I personally know of, where the original blood samples were completely used while testing for DNA matches.

I fail to see how testing two, or three rounds of spare ammo, out of even only 5-10 that remained would be ruled destruction of evidence. While at the same time, destroying biological crime scene evidence is allowed.

Those are very good questions, and kraigwy makes excellent points. I'm not entirely sure that I have a good answer to these particular questions, but I'll give it a shot. I haven't gone off and looked at the rules of evidence for this one, but here's my "shooting-from-the-hip" answer: destructive testing will only be allowed when there's no other alternative.

As regards blood and bullets, though, we're talking about two different types of evidence here. Actual evidence, and exemplar evidence. Blood found at a crime scene is actual evidence, and there's no way to get a sample of "DNA from the blood left at the scene," except to test the blood left at the scene. So my position on that is that testing of blood or other fluids, when they are actual evidence, is destructive testing, but it is permissible destructive testing.

On the other hand, the bullet testing we're talking about is exemplar evidence. In the case of handloads that were used in a shooting, the actual cartridges used were (obviously) used up in the shooting. So those can't be tested. Any rounds that are tested, whether they're from my reloading bench, or from a manufacturer, will have to be exemplars -- used only to test whether they behave in a manner consistent with my story.

The next best thing would be, as you've surmised, cartridges either left in the gun, or on the defendant's person. Even these would be exemplars, however, because they were not actually used in the shooting. It only makes sense to test those if we (or the court or the jury) can conclude that those leftover cartridges were similar enough in design and powder load to the spent cartridges that an expert can verify, to a reasonable scientific certainty, that the spent cartridges would have behaved in a way similar to the spent cartridges. Who can attest to that? The defendant. I would not expect a prosecutor to take my word for how I loaded cartridges. Now, you may be wondering: Why would anyone load the top 3 cartridges in a magazine with a different load than the bottom 7? (Or howevermany fit in your magazine). The truth is that it wouldn't, but that doesn't matter. The prosecutor would still have to believe that the shooter loaded identical rounds all the way to the bottom of the magazine. I would not expect the prosecutor to take the shooter's word for much of anything. (Part of that is a learned response. I'm just a traffic court prosecutor, but my "defendants-lie-to-me" ratio is pretty close to 100%. I can only imagine the lies that the prosecutors hear in the courts where murders are tried.)

In the case of factory cartridges, a neutral third party can attest to that, and to all of their records regarding their processes and procedures in loading. Two, three or 20 rounds of handloads that may be in a magazine or the shooter's pocket may not be enough to establish, with reasonable scientific certainty, that the cartridges did what I claim that they did.

 

[Don P]

Ayoob IS a professional, often times called in to testify..... I would hold his word above all others.

Quote:
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.


Spats McGee, THAT WAS THE HOLE POINT OF MAS'S SEGMENT!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for articulating it for me in # 3

The 2 above quotes were my reasoning for starting this thread. Just to pass along information.

 

[kraigwy]

Ammo selection aside, if one is interested, I'd recommend going to the library and finding a book (or books, the more the merrier) on Firearms Investigation & Evidence. Read the section on "range determination from powder marks".

You'll find it interesting and a bit conflicting to the stuff you read in these "factory vs. re-loaded" ammo topics.

Aside from that:

All marksmanship, be it plinking, competition, or self defense, is 95% + Mental.

If you worry or think about Y more then you do X, then choose X, the less you have to worry about, the better you are going to preform. Thats not just shooting, but pretty much all aspects of life............................Life after all is a mental game.

 

[Panfisher]

I have never really thought about the factory vs. reload scenario. My Kimber lives on a diet of reloads. 230 gr. HP's (generic ones) loaded to a pretty mild velocity. I keep the Kimber loaded with them all the time. I would be hard pressed to even find more than a partial box of factory loads in my house or workshop. I know exactly where the loads will hit and what they will do. I don't see any problem with them. I am not nor have I every been a lawyer but if the prosecution opened up the issue of reloads vs. factory loads would not the defense have the right to pursue that line also. Isn't it the prosecutions job to prove the reloads are more deadly and not the defense attorney, does not the burden of proof lie with the prosecution. Any decent lab could easily disassemble one round, determine the weight and type of propellant and reproduce easily the reloads and test them to their hearts content. I would think the most oft given reason for factory loads is reliability, however I have complete confidence in my loads. I don't believe that most reloaders routinely produces reloads that are more devastating than many of the so called PD loads such as Golden Sabres or Hydra Shoks, Glasers etc. so that part doesn't concern me, however as they say your mileage may vary.

 

[nate45]

I think the final answer is pretty clear. If you want to be worry free, at least in this aspect, use factory ammo in your defensive weapons. There was a time in the past, when there was a limited selection of consistent, reliable factory defense loads. Those days are long over, now there is a plethora of reliable, effective factory defense ammo available, at reasonable prices. Even if they cost a dollar a piece, its nothing compared to the cost of hiring even one defense expert witness.

It is an interesting topic to discuss though and brings rise to other questions. Such as the use of extra power factory defense ammunition, Buffalo Bore, Cor-Bon, Double-Tap, etc. come to mind. The reason being, that if a prosecutor could claim a defendants handloads were extra deadly and paint one in a negative light. He/she could just as easily claim that standard ammunition wasn't good enough and you needed extra deadly factory ammo.

So the advice Massad Ayoob and others have given to use the same ammunition as your local law enforcement uses and even the very handguns they use for duty, or BUGs, for civilian CCW, makes a lot of sense. If a prosecutor tried to make the claim that you were a wanna be cop, or that something was wrong with your weapon/ammo selection, it could easily be refuted, by a police witness if necessary.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Panfisher: I am not nor have I every been a lawyer but if the prosecution opened up the issue of reloads vs. factory loads would not the defense have the right to pursue that line also.

Not to appear curt, but you would benefit from reading the thread, or at least posts 31, 35, 39, and 40.

The issue is one of whether the defense would need to introduce certain scientific forensic trace evidence; the rules of evidence would prevent them from doing so unless factory ammunition had been used.

Should that evidence not be important to the defense, there would not be a problem.

When might GSR test data be important to the defense?

1. When the evidence and testimony about what happened in a shooting incident are sparse and/or contradictory;
2. when the approximate distance of the shooting is in question, and proof of same is important to either imprtant facts of the case or to the credibility of the defendant;
3. when the actual distance was such that evidence regarding gunshot residue would have been pertinent; and
4. when GSR test results of the exemplar rounds would either counter a prosecution argument or support the credibility of the defendant.

One can make his or her own assessment of the likelihood that all of those things would occur, but it should be crystal clear to everyone that should they occur, the potential consequences of not being able to prevent the evidence to a jury would be very severe indeed.

 

[JayCee]

It’s interesting to note that the major bullet manufacturers definitely envision that their bullets will be used for self-defense purposes. (I’m using “bullet” here to mean the projectile that flies out of the end of the barrel, not the now common usage of “bullet” to mean “cartridge”.) For example, Speer’s Reloading Manual #14 provides reloading data for its “Gold Dot” bullets, stating that they’re “the most asked-for bullets among law enforcement professionals”. Among the many millions of bullets sold to reloaders, it’s safe to assume that more than a few have ended up in self-defense situations. So far, I’ve only seen one case referenced in which the use of handloads was an issue. This is the Bias case, and the question of the defendant’s introduction of evidence concerning the performance of his handloads was never appealed. Are there other cases out there? Based on what I’ve seen so far, I think the risk of losing an otherwise defensible case because handloads were used approaches zero. I agree with the premise that it’s best to carry factory ammunition, but I think the adverse legal implications of using handloads are a bit overblown.

 

[MarkDozier]

After all the posts I am going to introduce a twist that maybe of a challenge to you because no one has mentioned black powder guns.
Lets say I am out with my black powder rifle and pistol practicing or hunting and a guy for some reason, lets say mental disorder, attacks me with an ax.
I kill him with my black powder rifle before he can get me. How does that differ from using hand-loads in a modern firearm?
In BP each load even if you use the same powder, cap, and bullet could be unique as I may load a bit different then you.
So what do you think when you look at this case under the current train of thoughts on this thread.

 

[Nnobby45]

I used the term "grave legal danger."

When discussing the possibility of being incarcerated for several years, possibly the rest of your life, grave legal danger is a good descriptor.

It seems my simultaneous use of the bold, italics, and underline function have upset you, John.

That's bunk, Willie. You changed the man's words around and said he was telling you something he wasn't.

Here's what you said.

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?

YOU said GRAVE LEGAL DANGER. I'd suggest that if you want to make such statements, then why not attribute YOUR statement to YOU.

Pardon me for being so direct, but there's a little too much rearranging of peoples words as of late, and most statements don't need to be reinterpreted, rearranged, or re phrased. Sometimes we may need to readjust our filtering systems so we hear what others are actually saying.

No I'm not perfect, and yes, that includes me from time to time. Willie's post just struck a cord, you might say.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[kraigwy]

challenge to you because no one has mentioned black powder guns

The range of "tattooing" can be as much as 10 feet with heavy BP loads from a Muzzle loader. Further then that of smokeless powder where as the most sensitive devices it would be difficult to pick up the residue past 4 feet.

Any time you have residue you're talking about "short distances" well within the range where as one would consider necessary for a self defense defense.

Sure different loads, different powders, different age of powders, different guns, different temperatures etc etc etc, would very the distance a bit, regardless of whether its from reloads or factory.

The ideal that bullet X would leave residue and Y distance, and bullet Z wouldn't, tells me there are other problems besides whether factory or reloaded ammo was used.

Again, I'd recommend finding a few books on Firearms investigation and evidence and do some research on "range determination from powder marks".

Determining such, like much of firearms investigation is not an exact science. You can not say "every time" or "if you do X, "Y" will happen". It just don't work that way except on TV CSI shows.

That's like saying bullet "A" will drop a deer in its tracks "every time".

Another example is a case where the prosecutor's expert witness said no Post 1900 Remington Rifle was produced without out serial numbers, therefore the defendant had to possess a rifle with a "defaced or removed serial number".

I talked the DA in dropping that charge. (We were dealing with a Remington Model 721).

 

[Panfisher]

OldMarksman your reply didn't seem "curt" but rather like someone tired of the argument directing a newbie (me) to oft recited information, so no offense taken on my part. I did actually read those posts and even went back to re-read them. Truthfully some of it is above my "I watched CSI on TV" mentality but I did try. As for the argument of a handload being heralded to be worse than a factory load simply doesn't make sense to me. However in todays world of bizarre court findings/rulings I don't discount a prosecutor/judge/jury being able to come up with a strange decision. If the only deciding factor was the apparent deadliness of the bullet used then everyone should use Ball ammo not what LE does. I do understand that the ballistics, powder tatooing, GSR etc., could be considered to be skewed as it was created by the defendant in the case of reloads, but if there are bullets left unfired, and another mag or two full I would think that the evidentiary rules would allowing testing of a few of them, leaving plenty for prosecution use. Just as testing a small container of drugs which would destroy some of it, with plenty left over to prosecute with. To me its more hype than concern. I guess if I ever end up in a courtroom (heaven forbid) explaining to a judge why I shot someone who was attacking me with a .45 ACP filled with reloaded ammo, I will look back and say, OOPS you guys were spot on. Would carrying a "tuned" .45 ACP be worse than carrying a GI syle, would a magazine holding more than 10 round make a defendent seem more "dangerous", how about night sights? All the things we do to our chosen firearms to make them more user friendly could be taken to be making them more of a "intent to cause death" platform. Maybe i am simply hoplessly naive as I am not a Peace Officer, and haven't been involved in even a speeding ticket, went to court twice, both times as a witness both dismissed, the closest I got to the courtroom drama was talking with the bailiff.

I would rather let the circumstances of the shooting and my testimony be the deciding factor than whether or not I chose to reload or not. Would it make a difference if shot someone who was breaking into my home with a .30-30 stoked with reloads, or a .12 ga. firing reloads I make to dove hunt? Honestly I can't see how it would. I guess there are extenuating circumstances that could apply in any situation but for the trememdous majority of cases I just don't see that it would make a difference. I could see a prosecutor working harder on making a case of me being a wannabe rambo or cop by simply having a firearm on me to start with that whether or not it was a reload or one of the best SD factory loads made. All in all I will continue to carry reloads and not worry too much about it, but that is my choice, as my reloads are much easier to shoot that the few Federal Hydrashoks I have in a box due to the lower recoil and somewhat lower noise level. OK I'll stop being the argumentive newbie for now, irrespective of whether or not I agree with you guys I do very much value the information and your experience so I say Thank You! (incidentally I did look in my stocks of ammo and found a full box of WWB ball ammo I had transferred to a plastic box and forgotten,?)

 

[Spats McGee]

Here's a brief explanation that I posted in another thread on this same topic:

For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to stick with the Federal Rules of Evidence. I know that most of these cases come down on state law grounds, but I'd like to avoid veering off into discussions of one state's rules of evidence against another. Many states use the Federal Rules as a model, and they'll give us some common ground from which to work.

So, first off, relevance:

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

Fed. R. Evid. 402
If it's relevant and not otherwise excluded, it gets in. If it's not relevant, it doesn't.

But (& this is a big but), GSR is specialized enough that it is considered "expert testimony." That means that Rule 702 governs it:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702(emphasis supplied)

So, if scientific or specialized knowledge will help the jury, an expert's opinion is admissible if:
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

You have to have all three to get the testimony of the shooter's expert in front of the jury. If the prosecutor files a Motion in Limine prior to trial, asking that it be excluded, he or she will simply argue that the opinion of the handloading defendant's expert is based on unreliable data. Specifically, what the prosecutor is saying is that because the data belongs to the defendant, it's inherently unreliable. I think there's a good chance that nobody was around when the cartridges were loaded, so there's no independent witness. If there is a witness, it's probably a good friend of the defendant. As a result, any data on which the opinion is based is suspect. The prosecutor may not argue with how the defendant's expert got from A to B, but what if A wasn't the right starting point? Then B becomes an unreliable conclusion. Anyway, if the motion in limine succeeds, there can be no mention of the defendant's expert at trial, and the jury will never hear about it.

The odds of this issue coming up are small. The risk to the defendant if they do is large.

One of the squirrelly things about this debate is that there isn't much appellate law on it. The quick primer on this aspect of the problem is as follows: Trial-level cases are not reported as binding decisions. That means that in order for us lawyer-types to find out about it without actually going down to the courthouse and digging through paper records, someone (almost always the defendant) has to appeal. And they have to be appealing on the issue of handloads, or it's not going to be discussed in the appellate opinion. Then the appellate court has to actually mull it over and write an opinion, rather than simply affirming or reversing, and then it has to publish the opinion. All in all, you have to have:
1) A shooting;
2) involving handloads;
3) where the shooter is charged;
4) handloads become an issue at trial;
5) the prosecution successfully keeps that evidence out at trial;
6) the defendant is convicted;
7) the defendant appeals on that specific issue;
8) the appellate court writes an opinion on that issue; and
9) the appellate court designates the opinion for publication.

I've spent some time on Westlaw, a very large legal research site, and generally on the internet, trying to find out more about this issue over several months. I searched far and wide, in many jurisdictions. I found as follows, when the issue is expert testimony based on handloads:

Admissible: 0
Inadmissible: 1

It's not about what a decent ballistics lab can do in reproducing handloads. It's about whether those lab techs will ever see the inside of the courtroom, using the handloader's records or recipe.

 

[Panfisher]

Interesting information, and oddly enough fairly easy to understand (for me). But with you knowledge, background and interest in the subject do I correctly understand that you found one case where the reload vs. issue was inadmissable and none where it was? Or was that the expert testimony about reloads or is it basically the same thing.

Again I say thank you, the amount of information and knowledge some of you gentlemen (and maybe ladies too?) have is amazing.

 

[kraigwy]

Admissible: 0
Inadmissible: 1

How many times have reload vs.factory come up in shooting cases? That info is needed to come up with any sort of statistical data.

I'm not arguing for the use of reloads,

But:

Based on the studies by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime:The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun",

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

there were between 80K to 700K cases of SD with a firearm depending on which survey you want to choose, but even taking the low number, 80,000, or 1 out of 80,000 cases results in problems with reloads, assuming of course the case in contention is actually a self defense case.