[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

...In a SD case, the difference between two feet and two inches is irrelevant...

The issue can indeed come up in a self defense case.

For example, see this post by Marty Hayes on another board:

I'll jump in here, although I expect my words to fall on deaf ears. I am scheduled to testify at a 1st degree assault trial in April, and pursuant to that testimony, I must conduct testing with a Glock 19 and Silvertip ammunition. It is critical for the defense to show the distance from the shooter to the shootee, and that should be done with a reasonable degree of acuracy BECAUSE I CAN USE THE SAME GUN/AMMO COMBO as the shooter/defendant. If he hadn't been using Silvertips, my testimony would be more open to being discredited, (as the DA tried to do in the first trial). This is a re-trial, due to a hung jury on the first one.

But, while I won't use handloads for self-defense, I certainly don't mind if you do. At $150 per hour of expert witness time, I like the idea that much more testing or work would have to be done to accomplish what might need to be accomplish. And, at private attorney rates of $250 er hour, how much more time will your attorney have to spend trying to explain to the jury why your use of handloads shouldn't be a factor?

For one hour of attorney time, you can use factory loads for the rest of your life....

And there was the case of Randy Willems. In about 1990, police Corporal Randy Willems of he Davenport, Iowa PD was able to successfully show he shot his accuser in self defense, and thus win acquittal, because he used factory ammunition and was able to introduce into evidence expert opinion based on GSR testing that supported his story. Here's what Massad Ayoob said about that case, as quoted by Bartholomew Roberts in this post:

Originally Posted by Mas Ayoob

....Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems

A man attempted to disarm and murder Corporal Randy Willems of the Davenport, IA Police Department, screaming “Give me your (expletive deleted) gun, I’ll blow your (expletive deleted) brains out.” Willems shot him during the third disarming attempt, dropping him instantly with one hit to the abdomen from a department issue factory round, Fiocchi 9mm 115 grain JHP +P+. The subject survived and stated that the officer had shot him for nothing from a substantial distance away. GSR testing showed conclusively that the subject’s torso was approximately 18” from the muzzle of the issue Beretta 92 when it discharged. Randy was acquitted of criminal charges in the shooting at trial in 1990. Two years later, Randy and his department won the civil suit filed against them by the man who was shot.

I use this case when discussing handloads because it is a classic example of how the replicability of factory ammunition, in the forensic evidence sense, can annihilate false allegations by the “bad guy” against the “good guy” who shot him. The records of State of Iowa v. Corporal Randy Willems are archived in the Iowa District Court in Scott County, Davenport, Iowa. Those from the civil suit, Karwoski v. Willems and the City of Davenport, should be at the Iowa Civil Court of Scott County, also located in Davenport, Iowa....

Originally Posted by jmortimer

"The only reason you don't see a lot of self-defense/murder cases involving reloads is just that not very many people get into shootings carrying handloads for self defense."
Fake fact pulled out of thin air. There are no facts to support your opinion. The reality is that in most every self-defense shooting, no one cares what ammunition was used....

No one care? Now that sounds like a fake fact pulled out of thin air.

The threshold question is how often has handloaded ammunition been used in an incident in which self defense was claimed and which went to trial?

Historical research is helpful only if there's sufficient historical data. If the question is something like, "Is a private citizen who shoots someone and claims self defense more likely to be charged if he used handloads compared with factory ammunition?", or "Is a private citizen who shoots someone and claims self defense more likely to be convicted at trial if he used handloads compared with factory ammunition?", the availability of useful data depends on (1) a large enough sample of private citizens having shot someone in claimed self defense; and (2) a large enough subset of those private citizens having used handloads.

I suggest that the vast majority of people who keep guns for self defense aren't enthusiasts and use commercial ammunition. Indeed, even many of the members here, who are enthusiasts, use commercial ammunition for self defense.

Just because there is insufficient historical data doesn't mean that professionals can't draw reasoned conclusions about how likely a particular result might be under certain circumstance. Indeed, it often happens in the practice of law that a particular issue of interest has not previously been addressed by an appellate court, and one must make a reasoned judgment without the guidance of on point precedent.

As Nassim Nicholas Taleb points out repeatedly in his books Fooled by Randomness, the Hidden Role of Chance (Random House, 2004) and The Black Swan, the Impact of the Highly Improbable (Random House, 2007), "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Taleb, a securities trader and professor at the University of Massachusetts, provides some interesting and useful insights into strategies for dealing with rare events.

Originally Posted by jmortimer

...A good shoot is a good shoot...

We really need to stifle this "a good shoot is a good shoot" business.

You will not have the final say on whether or not your use of lethal force was justified. Other people will be deciding that. So if you think you were justified but the DA and/or grand jury disagree, it's not a "good shoot" unless your trial jury decides that it was. See, for example --

This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.

And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

...1 -the expert testifies to the validity of the load as printed in the book after testing it in a lab (read quotes above about loading as close as possible to factory spec).
2. It's not about bringing thousands of reloaders into court it's about your lawyer presenting reloading as a reliable process based on testing the process "if you load 1000 rounds, using the documented process, you get the same results". This can also be tested in a lab by an expert.

3. - again the expert testifies....

If you used handloads, your expert probably wouldn't even get to testify, and certainly not as you suggest.

The issue here is the use of expert opinion about how something happened based on the testing or exemplars. The only way such opinion could be relevant and therefore admissible evidence in a trial would be if it could be established to the satisfaction of the judge that the exemplars were substantially identical to whatever was used in the event that is the subject of the trial.

A core principle of the rules of evidence requires that an expert opinion based on a scientific test be relevant. And for that opinion to be relevant, it must be established that it is based on a controlled and scientifically valid test that in all material respects duplicates the situation that is the subject of the trial.

So when the question is the distance from which a shot was fired, and the expert will be offering an opinion on that question based on GSR produced by firing exemplar rounds, that opinion can only be relevant if it can be established that the exemplar rounds were substantially identical to the round or rounds fired in the event that is the subject of the trial. Otherwise, how could the expert form a meaningful opinion about what actually happened?

If handloads were fired in the event, the only evidence of the characteristics of those rounds must come from the defendant, an extremely interested party. And therefore the only way the rounds fired could be connected with any exemplars used for testing would be through the defendant, an extremely interested party. The claim that the exemplars tested matched the round fired in the event is therefore suspect and inadequate to establish an acceptable foundation for the admission into evidence of expert opinion testimony based on the testing of those exemplars. There would be no independent verification that what was tested was anything like what was used in the event.

If identified commercial ammunition was fired in the event, there would be independent verification, through the manufacturer, that the exemplars tested substantially matched what was used in the event.