Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. v. Willock, 696 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md., 2010).

December 2, 2020 // by Chyanne Flores

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

State v. McKinnie, 850 S.E.2d 361 (2020) (unpub)

December 1, 2020 // by Sarah Olson

Not error to admit expert testimony from the CMPD fingerprint analyst who testified she did not find any dissimilarities and were similar. The trial court had ruled that under McPhaul since there’s no standard or no recognized methodology to be applied the expert can’t testify that they match. The Court of Appeals found her conclusion …

State v. McKinnie, 850 S.E.2d 361 (2020) (unpub)Read More

Tribble v. U.S., 447 A.2d 766 (D.C. 1982).

November 6, 2020 // by Jessica Phipps

Santae A. Tribble was convicted of killing a taxi driver in 1978. He spent 28 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit. Key evidence at his trial came from separate FBI experts who testified that their scientific analysis proved with near certainty that Tribble’s hair was at the crime scene. However, …

Tribble v. U.S., 447 A.2d 766 (D.C. 1982).Read More

State v. Bridges, No. 90 CRS23102-04, 2015 WL 12670468 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2015).

November 6, 2020 // by Jessica Phipps

In North Carolina, Timothy Scott Bridges was serving life for the rape of an 83-year old woman in Charlotte, in May of 1990. The evidence used at trial was microscopy hair evidence. He was convicted by a jury in Mecklenburg County for the charges of first-degree rape, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to …

State v. Bridges, No. 90 CRS23102-04, 2015 WL 12670468 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2015).Read More

State v. Turner, 849 S.E.2d 327 (2020)

October 6, 2020 // by Sarah Ammons

A SCL analyst performed an experiment measuring the direction and distance that shell casings traveled when a gun was fired at various angles and testified to the results, offering opinions about location of the shooter. On appeal, counsel argued that the tests were not “substantially similar.” The COA held that Rule 702 governs admission of …

State v. Turner, 849 S.E.2d 327 (2020)Read More

State v. Pabon, 850 S.E.2d 512 (2020)

October 6, 2020 // by Sarah Ammons

A SCL analyst testified to the results of another analyst’s testing. However, he personally reviewed the data and offered his own opinion, which the court held did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

State v. Pabon, 850 S.E.2d 512 (2020)Read More