Murder Sheet – A Defence Perspective on the Bullet
Murder Sheet
A: = Attorney (verified and speaking anonymously)
[Much of this is verbatim but I’ve paraphrased parts. Unnecessary words and phrases have been omitted]
PART 2
KG: What if, theoretically, we were able to prove to everyone’s satisfaction that the bullet found at the crime scene could be linked to Allen’s gun? What sort of significance would that have in your mind?
A: In my mind it’s still incredibly weak evidence because there are so many ways that an unspent round can go through a gun and be ejected out. It could be that it jammed at the firing range and (ui) out and it fell and somebody else picked it up. It could be that somebody came over to his house and saw it laying in an ashtray in the living room and just picked it up, played with it and put it in their own pocket. It could be that it fell out of a car somewhere along the way and somebody picked it up (ui) highway and dropped it. People have all kinds of things they put in their pockets – good luck charms. It could even accidentally have been placed there during a struggle. It could have been purposely placed there by somebody who was trying to set RA up. To me, the fact that even if it went through his gun, it’s almost useless information because you don’t have to clear it right there on the spot. It could have been cleared out of that gun back in 2001 or whenever he first bought it. It tells you nothing about how long ago that unspent round was cleared from a gun. It’s meaningless (ui).
AC: … Are there ways to tell how old a bullet is or if it’s been out in the elements for a while?
A: Yeah. I mean it depends on what cartridge, what round you’re looking at, but if it’s been out in water for years, there’s gonna be rust on it, there’s gonna be tarnish. If it’s really, really bright you know it hasn’t been there long. There’s ways of – but there’s nothing that’s really scientific. It’s just an eyeball test. “Yeah, that round’s been there for a while” or “No, it hasn’t”.
…
AC: And as far as courts go, when you’re practising criminal defence – I know it could probably depend on the location,
are these kind of ejector marks – do you frequently see them brought up by a prosecution as some sort of evidence in a trial?
A:
In 20 years of practice I have never seen it come up, ever. The toolmark examination reports regarding the markings that were left on a bullet that went through a barrel, I’ve seen that often. I’ve never seen injector markings being an issue in a case, ever.
AC: In your expert opinion, what could it mean that they’re using them in this very high profile case?
A: … I don’t know that I’m an expert but I’ve done a lot of this work and what I think is that they’re using this information to get a probable cause finding without having to reveal other information.
AC: … You mentioned that the toolmark identification – technology and things around that – is a little more contested than a lot of civilians may realise. Could you speak more to that? Is it starting to get pushback in courts in America in general?
A: In the jurisdiction where I practise it’s not being contested very much because it’s not used a bunch in the courts where I’m at, but I know that there is a trend towards fighting this kind of information. From the defence perspective there’s a trend in fighting it nationwide. I go to conferences all over and I know that, particularly in the N-E, there’s been some cases where it has been excluded, and we’re talking about the more specific toolmark that is imparted by the barrel is far stronger than the ejector. Toolmarks in the barrel evidence is being contested quite vigorously around the country and other locations with some success.
… the National Academy of Sciences’ report there’s really only one forensic science that has any capability of saying an individual person left this particular piece of evidence, and that is DNA that is large enough to exclude other people, and single source biological samples. … Particularly these toolmark examination things, I think people in the defence community are starting to realise that just because somebody gets on the witness stand and says they’re an expert on something doesn’t make it true. I’ve just seen too many experts in various fields being excluded and having controversies related to their opinions to accept that evidence (ui) at the centre of a case.
…
If it goes to trial, no, I don’t think there’s gonna be any problem finding an expert who can cast doubt on the toolmarks, but if they are hinging their case on this one piece of evidence, they’re in a lot of trouble anyway.