Posted by Winchester 73 If the perp was an intruder in a person's home, and was shot, in a state with a castle doctrine, explain how the perp could have a civil suit or explain why a DA would pursue the home owner who used reloads? It would not happen.
Let's forget castle doctrine here--it applies to things other than the subject.
I will address the two points made.
First, civil suits: the burden of proof for civil suit is a
predominance of the evidence; for criminal conviction, the standard is
beyond a reasonable doubt. The state can fail to prove the latter, but that does not, in and of itself, stop civil proceedings.
Some states have a provision for civil immunity if an act involving the use of force was justified under the criminal code and applicable precedents; they may or may not also have a "castle doctrine", and not all states with a castle doctrine provide for civil immunity. What civil immunity provisions mean is that a defender can petition the court to stop a lawsuit before it goes to trial. That requires the defender to produce, and present to a judge, evidence to the effect that a plaintiff would not be able to meet the preponderance of the evidence threshold, were the trial to take place.
Now to hand loads in a shooting within the home: in my opinion, the likelihood that the defender would have a need to introduce GSR pattern evidence in such a situation is lower than if the shooting had occurred somewhere outside. But that does not mean that discrepancies among other evidence and testimony could make such evidence important.
To understand that point, one has to accept that the castle doctrine does not provide a defender with either a license to shoot or a get out of jail free card, but for that, we have to go to the link provided by Spats.
This should also cast some light on the subject. The main point is that the simple fact that the shooting takes place inside one's home is not sufficient to bring castle doctrine protection into play.