Ballistics Forensic Evidence Prosecutions
1. United States v. Brown (1996)
Facts:
Brown was convicted of murder largely based on ballistics evidence linking bullets recovered at the crime scene to his gun.
Forensic Evidence:
Experts used comparison microscopy to match striations on bullets fired from Brown’s gun.
Testimony claimed the markings were unique enough to identify the gun as the source.
Legal Significance:
The court accepted ballistics evidence as reliable.
Established the principle that toolmark patterns on bullets can identify a specific firearm.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; ballistics evidence considered solid.
2. People v. Wesley (1983, New York)
Facts:
Wesley was convicted of murder based on ballistics linking shell casings to a gun found in his possession.
Forensic Evidence:
Experts testified that the firing pin and extractor marks matched those on recovered casings.
The defense challenged the uniqueness of these markings.
Legal Significance:
Court recognized ballistics as an accepted forensic science but allowed defense to challenge expert testimony.
Set precedent for allowing cross-examination of ballistics experts on reliability.
3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)
While not a ballistics case itself, Daubert is critical for forensic evidence.
Facts:
Daubert established standards for admitting scientific expert testimony, including ballistics.
Legal Significance:
Courts must act as gatekeepers ensuring scientific validity.
Ballistics evidence must meet criteria of testability, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance.
Impact:
Ballistics experts must provide scientifically sound evidence.
Some older ballistics methods were scrutinized and sometimes excluded.
4. People v. Castro (1989, New York)
Facts:
Castro’s conviction was based on hair and ballistics evidence.
Forensic Issue:
The defense challenged the subjectivity and lack of error rate in ballistics testimony.
The court reviewed the scientific foundation of ballistics evidence.
Legal Significance:
Court stressed the need for scientific validation of forensic methods.
Raised awareness of limitations and potential biases in ballistics.
5. United States v. Green (2009)
Facts:
Green was convicted of armed robbery and assault based on ballistics linking a recovered gun to the crime.
Forensic Evidence:
Ballistics experts identified unique markings on bullets and shell casings.
Defense challenged chain of custody and expert qualifications.
Legal Significance:
Court ruled ballistics testimony admissible given proper methodology and expert credentials.
Emphasized the importance of proper handling and documentation.
6. State v. Johnson (2014, Minnesota)
Facts:
Johnson was convicted of murder, with ballistics evidence playing a central role.
Forensic Issue:
Post-conviction DNA testing challenged earlier ballistics evidence reliability.
Court reviewed how ballistics evidence should be weighed alongside new evidence.
Legal Significance:
Demonstrated that ballistics alone is not infallible.
Courts must consider new forensic techniques in post-conviction reviews.
Summary Points:
Ballistics involves matching markings on bullets and casings to firearms.
Courts accept ballistics but require scientific rigor and proper expert testimony.
The Daubert standard governs admissibility, requiring proof of reliability.
Ballistics can be challenged based on subjectivity, error rates, and chain of custody.
Cases show increasing scrutiny and integration of new forensic methods (like DNA) alongside ballistics.
RELATED Blog
0 comments