I looked up the HGR case online. Seems like Bowles is filing an appeal based on the prosecution hiding other exculpatory evidence. (Not the ammo but the supplement to the Haag report that was briefly mentioned in today's hearing.)
In short, despite having in its possession a report from its own experts stating that the firearm used on the set of the Rust film contained unexplained toolmarks on critical surfaces of the trigger and sear, which (1) likely were not “the result of the damage incurred during the FBI’s impact testing,” and (2) “do not appear to be original manufacturing marks or use and abuse toolmarks based on [their] irregular orientation,” the State buried this information and never disclosed it to Ms. Gutierrez-Reed. But not only that: the State then called the expert at trial and sat idly by as he perjured himself during cross-examination.
In short, despite having in its possession a report from its own experts stating that the firearm used on the set of the Rust film contained unexplained toolmarks on critical surfaces of the trigger and sear, which (1) likely were not “the result of the damage incurred during the FBI’s impact testing,” and (2) “do not appear to be original manufacturing marks or use and abuse toolmarks based on [their] irregular orientation,” the State buried this information and never disclosed it to Ms. Gutierrez-Reed. But not only that: the State then called the expert at trial and sat idly by as he perjured himself during cross-examination.