Quote:
|
I asked my friend who is a retired oregon State Trooper about this and he said that every homicide he had been involved in, whether ruled self defense or deliberate murder, the facts about whether or not the shooter used reloads never came up at trial.
|
The subject is most unlikely to "come up at trial", but if it does, state troopers would not be aware of it, nor would the jury, nor the public.
The question of the admissibility of evidence would be handled in the judge's chambers. Only those who had to be involved in the ruling would know about it.
If evidence is not admitted, no one else will know of its existence.
Quote:
|
He thought the idea was silly.
|
I would't put much stock in what he thinks.
Quote:
|
From that I have to take the fear mongering with a grain of salt, ....
|
We are not engaged in "fear mongering", but in a discussion of well established and tested legal principles.
Quote:
|
....in spite of the implications of the Fish case I don't think it's a likely problem.
|
I would agree. It is very unlikely indeed. It would only become a problem if the defense needed to introduce expert testimony regarding test results relative to the distance of a shooting, for example in cases in which eyewitness testimony is contradictory, and if the defendant had used ammunition that would not meet the requirements for admissibility under the rules of evidence.
Sure, that's unlikely. But it may be the
only thing that could prevent a conviction.
The problem is easily avoided.