I think a lot of people here are focusing on a criminal trial, rather than a civil trial.
The argument that "if lethal force was justified, it won't matter what kind of ammo I was using" is probably pretty valid for a criminal prosecution. If you are justfied in using deadly force, then it's not going to matter whether you killed them a little bit or a whole lot. Dead is dead.
Where I can see ammo choice coming into play is in a civil lawsuit. Specifically - if one of your rounds misses the bad guy but hits a bystander, or goes through the bad guy. Or in a wrongful death suit.
The burden of proof is much lower in a civil wrongful death suit, and there is also the concept of joint and several liability, in which you can be found partially at fault. So suppose the bad guy was found to be 70% at fault for his own death, but you are found to be 30% at fault. They are suing you for 10 million. So now you only have to pay 3 million, not all 10 of it.
That's where a lawyer might try to come up with a "the defendant used the most deadly ammo he could find, and even created his own special blend" sort of thing.
If you have never served jury duty, I strongly recommend it. You'd be surprised how many people have pre-conceived ideas about things, and how a lawyer can plant ideas in their heads. Turns out that a "jury of your peers" is composed of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Some of them will fall for that "he used extra-deadly hollow point ammunition that should only be reserved for professionally trained police officers".
So don't worry so much about jail time. Worry about losing your house and everything else you own due to a civil verdict.
The argument that "if lethal force was justified, it won't matter what kind of ammo I was using" is probably pretty valid for a criminal prosecution. If you are justfied in using deadly force, then it's not going to matter whether you killed them a little bit or a whole lot. Dead is dead.
Where I can see ammo choice coming into play is in a civil lawsuit. Specifically - if one of your rounds misses the bad guy but hits a bystander, or goes through the bad guy. Or in a wrongful death suit.
The burden of proof is much lower in a civil wrongful death suit, and there is also the concept of joint and several liability, in which you can be found partially at fault. So suppose the bad guy was found to be 70% at fault for his own death, but you are found to be 30% at fault. They are suing you for 10 million. So now you only have to pay 3 million, not all 10 of it.
That's where a lawyer might try to come up with a "the defendant used the most deadly ammo he could find, and even created his own special blend" sort of thing.
If you have never served jury duty, I strongly recommend it. You'd be surprised how many people have pre-conceived ideas about things, and how a lawyer can plant ideas in their heads. Turns out that a "jury of your peers" is composed of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Some of them will fall for that "he used extra-deadly hollow point ammunition that should only be reserved for professionally trained police officers".
So don't worry so much about jail time. Worry about losing your house and everything else you own due to a civil verdict.