North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services
// 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
// 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
// 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
// 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
// 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
// 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.
// 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
// 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 …
// 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, …
// 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
// 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 …
// 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.
// by Sarah Olson
4th Circuit en banc rehearing, decided Aug. 24, 2020. See Judge Wynn’s concurring opinion regarding eyewitness identification evidence.
// by Sarah Olson
Bite mark case where conviction was reversed based on changes in the science being newly discovered evidence.
// by Sarah Ammons
Dr. Wilkie Wilson’s testimony on decedent’s behavior being consistent with methamphetamine intoxication violated Rule 702(a)(1), where he had not examined the decedent and based his opinion on witness statements and a medical report from 2014.