Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jmortimer
"The fact that the Daniel Bias case (where reloads were an issue) is not an SD case is wholly irrelevant."
Well, no, it is relevant. In Bias, a convicted killer, tried to say his wife killed herself.
|
Did Bias have a criminal record as a killer prior to the case involving his wife's death? What impact does his status as a "convicted killer" have on the admissibility of evidence?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jmortimer
Assuming we were to believe him, or not, then the take away is that no one should reload, or put reloads in their firearms. Even an accidental shooting (this is what the prosecution argued - that it was an accidental and reckless killing)and you are toast using this "logic." Are we really going to quit reloading and assuming the answer is no, then would we dare to insert the reload into a firearm, because just doing that will cause you huge problems in court no matter what if someone gets shot. Accidents happen, and that is what the Bias case is all about in the end, and reloads are bad in every circumstance because accidents happen. You see how silly all this is. Use some common sense. So, no one use reloads under any circumstances and no one use a 10mm just because you never know what might happen.
|
That no one should reload is not what I take away from the
Bias case. What I take a way from it is that using reloads for SD can significantly complicate one's defense, should there ever be a shooting with those reloads. The "constellation" under which that complication can arise is of a "low-probability-but-high-stakes" sort. If you're aware of some case that stands for the proposition that "a reloader's reloading data is admissible," I'll be glad to read it.
As for 10mm, I take that to be a wholly different problem. Reloads are an evidentiary issue. The 10mm case was a jury perception problem, a totally different beast.
I actually agree with this earlier statement of yours earlier statement:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jmortimer
I suppose the best practice would be to reload as close as possible to the uber-factory load that you carry and practice with the reload.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marquezj16
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
So, if scientific or specialized knowledge will help the jury, an expert's opinion is admissible if:
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
|
1 - a good reloading book from a refutable company should suffice
2 - reloading is a known process with a long history that is proven by the thousands of reloaders
3 - if the reload is tested by a balistics expert in a lab, that expert witness can testify on the reloaders behalf.
|
1) How will the reloading manual tell the jury what was actually loaded into the cartridge? Answer: it won't. It will only tell the jury what was recommended. For actual loading information, you'll have to turn to the reloader himself. There's a challenge to "suffient" right there.
2) You won't be allowed to bring in "thousands of reloaders." I do not doubt that the process is reliable, but the key witness to the act of reloading and the data will have to be the shooter (defendant). Reliability of the data/testimony is a problem.
3) See #1 and #2.