Posted on 06/19/2025 11:19:02 AM PDT by aimhigh
A recent Oregon Court of Appeals ruling blew a gaping hole in the state police crime lab’s long-standing technique of matching a suspect’s gun to shell casings left behind at a crime scene. The court found that a forensic examiner relied on “subjective judgment” based on training and experience – not objective scientific methodology – when linking shell casings in a 2018 Portland shooting to a Taurus handgun.
The decision threatens an untold number of similar prosecutions across that state that have relied on ballistic comparisons. It already has left prosecutors scrambling to adjust trial tactics while defense attorneys hope the ruling will stand so judges keep what they call “junk science” out of the courtroom.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
I think most people have vague and undefined notions of what actually constitutes science.
Interesting. Not sure I’d trust an Oregon Cory on anything but to my eyes (never mind TV shows that make it look obvious) the process seems more than a bit like tea leaves.
Namely, like it in the sense that the examiner is likely to find whatever the people paying him need to see.
Downside is lefties will go revive their idiot bills to “require” every bullet be traceable from manufacture to use (in other words ban bullets).
Cory??!? Sorry, “court.”
Simple.
Evidence that exonerates a leftist or a criminal is scientifically valid.
Evidence that convicts a leftist or a criminal is scientifically invalid.
What constitutes evidence in the trial of a conservative or innocent is left(ist) to the reader as an exercise...
Ping.
Daubert is the legal standard for scientific evidence under federal law.
“The “Daubert Standard” provides a systematic framework for a trial court judge to assess the reliability and relevance of expert witness testimony before it is presented to a jury. Established in the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), this standard transformed the landscape of expert testimony by placing the responsibility on trial judges to act as “gatekeepers” of scientific evidence.
The Daubert case introduced a more comprehensive approach that requires judges to scrutinize not only the expert’s methodology but also the underlying scientific principles. This shift aimed to curtail the admission of pseudoscientific or unreliable expert testimony. Judges are required to assess the methodology and reasoning behind an expert’s opinions, rather than simply relying on the expert’s credentials or reputation.
Under the Daubert Standard, the trial court considers the following factors to determine whether the expert’s methodology is valid:
Whether the technique or theory in question can be, and has been tested;
Whether it has been subjected to publication and peer review;
Its known or potential error rate;
The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and
Whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
The Daubert Standard supplanted the Frye Standard, which focused primarily on the general acceptance of scientific evidence within a particular field. See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). While some state courts still adhere to the Frye Standard, the Daubert Standard is used in all federal courts.
Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases have clarified the Daubert Standard. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that an appellate court may still review whether a trial court abused its discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony.
In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that the Daubert Standard may apply to non-scientific testimony, meaning “the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists.” Along with Daubert, these cases are often referred to as the “Daubert Trilogy.” Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was modified based on these cases.
To challenge expert testimony as inadmissible under the Daubert Standard, opposing counsel may bring a pretrial motion, including a motion in limine. Usually, a motion attacking the admissibility of expert testimony will be brought after the close of discovery, with a hearing held prior to trial.”
As spent shell casing can positively be link to a particular firearm that has not had the chamber or firing pin altered afterwards.
The court found that a forensic examiner relied on “subjective judgment” based on training and experience – not objective scientific methodology –
SHOW ME THE TRAINING IN FORENSICS THE JUDGE HAS.
JUDGE IS SHOOTING OFF THEIR MOUTH, IMO
“TRAINING & EXPERIENCE”
EXACTLY WHAT WOULD THE JUDGE SUBSTITUTE FOR THIS???
Excellent post, and it clearly outlines how expert testimony is evaluated in a court of law. The truth about much ballistic evidence presented as science is that it is not science. It is largely objective opinion that was first used in courts before actual scientific methods were available to test that evidence. The question is, will courts in general throw out the kind of evidence that has been presented for decades now, or will they allow the current situation to continue. I can only imagine how many cases will be thrown out if typical ballistics testimony becomes inadmissible.
When what we have accepted as “science” for a long period of time is corrupted in one area (Global Warming/Climate Change), it will ultimately cause degradations of trust in other areas as well. It was inevitable.
Science is what we say it is!
Abortion is not murder!
mRNA vaxes are SAFE!
US elections are valid.
Abortion is a sacred right....oops, that’s just fact.
Nancy drinks all day....ooops, just another fact.
Does evidence in a trial ever contain 100% truth? No
Some evidence is 99.99% true. but there is always the chance of that rare event.
It would be helpful if juries understood this..and were presented with the odds. It would ultimately end with the
defense producing a.yy% that the defendant didn’t do it and the prosecution producing b.yy% that the defendant did do it.
I HAVE DONE ACCOUNTING SINCE `1957.
I DID A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF BANK RECONCILIATIONS. LOVE DOING THEM.
IF I TOLD MY BOSS THE ACCOUNTS WERE “BALANCED”-——
THEY WERE-— TO THE PENNY.
I RELIED ON MY TRAINING & EXPERIENCE-—AND MY BOSS RELIED ON ME TO TELL HIM THE TRUTH.
I AM REFERRING TO BANK ACCOUNTS FOR PAYROLL-—FOR WEEKLY CHECKS-—FOR 1500 EMPLOYEES—EVERY WEEK. FOR 2 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS...
6000 CHECKS in a FOUR WEEK MONTH-—7500 IN A 5 WEEK MONTH...for EACH LOCATION....12,000 to 15,000 CHECKS TOTAL.
RECEIVED FROM THE BANK IN SHOE BOXES——
SORTED BY HAND
VERIFIED AGAINST BANK STATEMENTS THAT WERE 4-5 PAGES LONG & ALL ‘OUTSTANDING” CHECKS PROPERLY NOTED.
EVERY JOB HAS TO RELY ON “TRAINING & EXPERIENCE”——
WHO DOES THIS JUDGE GO TO FOR MEDICAL HELP???
FOR VEHICLE REPAIRS?
FOR A HAIRCUT?
FOR CUSTOM MADE SUITS?
SAME STANDARDS, IMO.
THIS IS JUST PLAIN NUTS.
MAYBE AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF JUDGES IS CALLED FOR
The same toolmark analysis methods might be applied to firing pins manufactured on the same day; that is, the expert testifies that the toolmarks on two firing pins can be sufficiently identical to identify the machine they were manufactured on.
Perhaps the experts want it both ways; firing pins are unique and firing pins can be nearly identical.
I remember when I got a pistol in Maryland 20 years ago, it had to have a spent shell case, which was sent to the state police and put in their registry. It turned out that the registry was successful in matching only one case to a gun, and no convictions ever came from it. I moved to VA, but I think MD eventually got rid of the registry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.