Cases
United States v. Adams, 444 F. Supp.3d 1248 (D. Or. 2020).
After applying Daubert, the court concluded that the expert testimony in the case should be limited because the conclusions were not supported by a quantifiable or replicable scientific process.
United States v. Adams, 444 F. Supp.3d 1248 (D. Or. 2020).Read More
People v. Ross, 68 Misc. 3d 899 (2020).
Decision on a Frye Motion requesting that the court preclude all ballistic expert testimony comparing shell casings from the crime scene to a gun found in one of the defendants’ car. The court concluded that an expert cannot offer opinions that are not supported by the relevant scientific community. Testimony by an expert that is …
State v. Walton, _ N.C. App. _ (April 20, 2021)
A sniffing canine can be found to be property trained despite the canine having an expired certification at the time of the the sniff, so long as the canine has a history of certification and at least one other unexpired certification. Additionally, the handler’s training being inconsistent with department standards is not by itself insufficient …
State v. Jackson, _ N.C. App. _ (April 20, 2021)
Evidence that cocaine was the identity of the substance was admissible not withstanding the substance being handled with bare hands and stored in a glove box where cocaine had previously been stored. The court found concerns over cross contamination went to the evidence’s weight, not matters of admissibility and authentication.
State v. Carver, _ N.C. App. _ (April 20, 2021)
Defendant successfully appealed a murder conviction on a motion for appropriate relief by showing, with expert testimony, that SBI policies for interpreting mixture DNA evidence at the time were outdated and inaccurate based on current accepted practices. A new trial was awarded.
United States v. Tibbs, 2016-CF1-19431.
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.
Missouri v. Goodwin-Bey, No. 1531-CR00555-01 (Cir. Ct. Green County, Mo., Dec. 16, 2016).
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
Williams v. United States, 130 A.3d 343 (D.C. 2016).
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
United States v. Taylor, 663 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D.N.M. 2009).
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
United States v. Glynn, 578 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
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
United States v. Alls, No. 2:08-cr-00223-ALM (S.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2009).
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
United States v. Love, No. 2:09-cr-20317-JPM (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2011).
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
United States v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104.
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.
U.S. v. Willock, 696 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md., 2010).
The court ruled that toolmark evidence is relevant, helpful, and reliable if offered by a qualified examiner who followed the AFTE theory. Id. at 569-570. There should be documentation (photographs, notes, etc.) of the conclusions reached to allow confirmation by a second qualified examiner on how an identification was reached. Id. This documentation should also …
U.S. v. Willock, 696 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md., 2010).Read More