Posted by JayCee: Well, to answer your question, I'm unwilling to accept the explanations posted because I don't think they accurately reflect the rules for admissibility of evidence.
Those who have tried to explain the subject do have considerable background in the subject area.
Several are attorneys. In my case, I once had the responsibility of ensuring that certain records produced by the systems of a major corporation would meet the standards for admissibility established in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow. By the way, the records in question at the time were
financial.
That brings up a point, for those who may not understand the way legal precedence works. The case of
Frye v. United States was about polygraph test results, but the ruling in that case established principles that applied to all scientific forensic evidence. The case(s) of
Daubert v. Merrell Dow revolved around pharmaceutical testing, but the ruling(s) apply to all scientific forensic trace evidence and to the certification of expert witnesses. They most certainly apply to ammunition testing as well as to fibers, drugs, DNA, and even computer reports (one could go on and on).
That's your opinion on the matter. It differs from mine.
I believe that my opinion is very well founded.
The Daubert case which you mentioned puts the judge in the position of gatekeeper to determine whether scientific or technical evidence is reliable enough to be admitted, based on an inquiry into the methodology used.
The judge does serve as gatekeeper, and has served in that capacity in all trials, criminal and civil, for years.
Daubert establishes a set of specific requirements for the methodology that must have been followed in the development and storage of the information, for the evidence to be ruled admissible. There are entire courses built around the subject and many texts written about it.
It’s not, as you seem to think, a “black and white” test for admissibility, and it’s certainly not the basis for a blanket statement that “it is almost certain that no judge would ever admit evidence based on testing of ammunition loaded by the defendant.
Regarding the first point ("black and white"), you are correct; that's why there are people who make their living in this subject area.
Regarding the second ("ammunition loaded by the defendant"), there is really very little question about it. Without going into all of the details, "loaded by the defendant" makes the evidence a non-starter by itself.
If you are unwilling to accept what has been stated here, I think you have two choices:
- Discuss the issue face to face with professionals who work for a crime lab or other forensic testing laboratory; or
- attend a law course on the subject of applying the Daubert ruling as it applies to the admissibility of forensic scientific trace evidence. The course I attended took the better part of a day. I do remember that those who took it were best served if they already had some knowledge of evidentiary principles, ISO certification, the design of scientific experiments, the requirements for an adequate system of internal controls, or some combination of the foregoing.