• About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
    • Foundations of Forensics
    • Arson
    • Bite Mark
    • Blood & Bodily Fluids
    • Child Abuse Allegations
    • Crime Scene Investigation
    • Death Investigation
    • Detection Dogs
    • Digital Evidence
    • DNA
    • Drug Analysis
    • Drug Recognition Experts
    • Eyewitness ID
    • Fingerprints
    • Firearms
    • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
    • Measurement Uncertainty
    • Mental Health
    • Toxicology
    • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
    • Forensic Consultations
    • Books
    • Cases
    • Featured Articles
    • Legislation
    • Motions and Briefs
      • Discovery Motions
      • Funding for Experts
      • Motions for Appropriate Relief
      • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
      • Motions for Independent Testing
      • Motions to Preserve Evidence
      • Motions to Suppress
      • Analyst Certification Motions
    • Reports & Publications
    • Trainings
    • Websites
    • Forensic Terminology
    • Online Research Tools
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
  • Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Forensic ResourcesNorth Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

Header Right

MENUMENU
  • About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
        • Foundations of Forensics
        • Arson
        • Bite Mark
        • Blood & Bodily Fluids
        • Child Abuse Allegations
        • Crime Scene Investigation
        • Death Investigation
        • Detection Dogs
        • Digital Evidence
        • DNA
        • Drug Analysis
        • Drug Recognition Experts
        • Eyewitness ID
        • Fingerprints
        • Firearms
        • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
        • Measurement Uncertainty
        • Mental Health
        • Toxicology
        • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
        • Forensic Consultations
        • Books
        • Cases
        • Featured Articles
        • Legislation
        • Reports & Publications
        • Trainings
        • Websites
        • Forensic Terminology
        • Online Research Tools
        • Motions and Briefs
          • Discovery Motions
          • Funding for Experts
          • Motions for Appropriate Relief
          • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
          • Motions for Independent Testing
          • Motions to Preserve Evidence
          • Motions to Suppress
          • Analyst Certification Motions
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Firearms

Firearms

Allegations Against DC Crime Lab Potentially Put Prosecutions in Jeopardy

April 9, 2021 //  by Sarah Olson

Allegations Against DC Crime Lab Potentially Put Prosecutions in JeopardyRead More

Article Source: NBC WashingtonForensic Discipline: Crime Labs, Fingerprints, Firearms

National forensics board suspends D.C. crime lab’s accreditation, halting analysis of evidence, city says

April 3, 2021 //  by Sarah Olson

National forensics board suspends D.C. crime lab’s accreditation, halting analysis of evidence, city saysRead More

Article Source: Washington PostForensic Discipline: Crime Labs, Firearms

Ballistics work at D.C.’s crime lab criticized by forensic experts

March 26, 2021 //  by Sarah Olson

Ballistics work at D.C.’s crime lab criticized by forensic expertsRead More

Article Source: Washington PostForensic Discipline: Crime Labs, Firearms

DC forensic lab under criminal investigation over firearms case

March 25, 2021 //  by Sarah Olson

DC forensic lab under criminal investigation over firearms caseRead More

Article Source: WTOPForensic Discipline: Crime Labs, Firearms

Mock Juror Perceptions of Forensics

January 17, 2021 //  by Sarah Olson

Speakers: Brandon Garrett, Nicholas Scurich, and William Crozier. Presented by CSAFE. Recording available.

Mock Juror Perceptions of ForensicsRead More

Resource Category: TrainingsResource Source: CSAFEForensic Discipline: Experts, Firearms, Foundations of Forensics

United States v. Tibbs, 2016-CF1-19431.

January 2, 2021 //  by Chyanne Flores

After applying the Daubert factors, the court reached the conclusion that ballistic matching lacks the scientific integrity to make statements of certainty. The court limited the ballistics expert testimony to only stating that the gun could not be excluded as a potential source of the bullet.

United States v. Tibbs, 2016-CF1-19431.Read More

Resource Category: CasesForensic Discipline: Firearms

Missouri v. Goodwin-Bey, No. 1531-CR00555-01 (Cir. Ct. Green County, Mo., Dec. 16, 2016).

January 2, 2021 //  by Chyanne Flores

The court allows the ballistics expert testimony, but limits the testimony to say that the gun in question could not be eliminated as a source of the bullet.

Missouri v. Goodwin-Bey, No. 1531-CR00555-01 (Cir. Ct. Green County, Mo., Dec. 16, 2016).Read More

Resource Category: CasesForensic Discipline: Firearms

Williams v. United States, 130 A.3d 343 (D.C. 2016).

January 2, 2021 //  by Chyanne Flores

The court affirmed the admissibility of the Government’s expert witness’s statement of certainty concerning the ballistic evidence. The expert testified that the markings were, “unique to that gun, and that gun only.” Id. at 346. Due to a failure to object by the defense and a lack of binding law that says otherwise, the inclusion …

Williams v. United States, 130 A.3d 343 (D.C. 2016).Read More

Resource Category: CasesForensic Discipline: Firearms

United States v. Taylor, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D.N.M. 2009).

December 27, 2020 //  by Chyanne Flores

The court finds that ballistics science is admissible, and notes the level of subjectivity and the impossibility of a perfect match in this field of science. The court prohibits the expert testimony from saying that the ballistic match is to a scientific, practical, or absolute certainty to exclude all other firearms.

United States v. Taylor, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D.N.M. 2009).Read More

Resource Category: CasesForensic Discipline: Firearms

United States v. Glynn, 578 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

December 27, 2020 //  by Chyanne Flores

The court finds that ballistics examination lacks the rigor and certainty of other forensic sciences, and there a limit is needed on the degree of confidence given during testimony. The court limits testimony to “more likely than not”.

United States v. Glynn, 578 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).Read More

Resource Category: CasesForensic Discipline: Firearms

United States v. Alls, No. 2:08-cr-00223-ALM (S.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2009).

December 26, 2020 //  by Chyanne Flores

Defendant filed a motion to exclude expert testimony which was denied in part and granted in part. The court held that the expert could provide testimony concerning toolmark evidence, but could not testify that a match was found to a degree of certainty which excludes all other firearms in the world from being the source.

United States v. Alls, No. 2:08-cr-00223-ALM (S.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2009).Read More

Resource Category: CasesForensic Discipline: Firearms

United States v. Love, No. 2:09-cr-20317-JPM (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2011).

December 26, 2020 //  by Chyanne Flores

Although the defendant’s motion to exclude testimony was denied, the court held that the toolmark expert may not testify that a match was found to an “absolute” or “practical” certainty.  This conclusion was reached after evidence was presented that suggested this level of certainty was impossible.

United States v. Love, No. 2:09-cr-20317-JPM (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2011).Read More

Resource Category: CasesForensic Discipline: Firearms

NIST Scientific Foundation Reviews

December 18, 2020 //  by Sarah Olson

Abstract:The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a scientific research agency that works to advance measurement science, standards, and technology and that has been working to strengthen forensic science methods for almost a century. In recent years, several scientific advisory bodies have expressed the need for scientific foundation reviews of forensic disciplines and …

NIST Scientific Foundation ReviewsRead More

Resource Category: Featured ArticlesResource Source: NISTForensic Discipline: Bite Mark, DNA, Firearms, Foundations of Forensics

False Conviction – How fingerprint and firearm experts use misleading math to appear infallible.

December 17, 2020 //  by Sarah Olson

False Conviction – How fingerprint and firearm experts use misleading math to appear infallible.Read More

Article Source: SlateForensic Discipline: Fingerprints, Firearms

United States v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104.

December 12, 2020 //  by Chyanne Flores

The Court holds that it will allow ballistics testimony with limitations.  The expert testimony can include things such as the methodology and the fact that a match was found, but the expert cannot make claims of certainty that the match excludes all other possible firearms in the world. Id. at 124.

United States v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104.Read More

Resource Category: CasesForensic Discipline: Firearms

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to Next Page »

Site Footer

The Forensic Resource Counsel provides assistance to North Carolina attorneys litigating scientific evidence issues.
Information provided on this website is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Copyright © 2021 · Office of Indigent Defense Services · All Rights Reserved · Website by Tomatillo Design

Copyright © 2021 Forensic Resources · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Mai Theme