Reloads for self defense

[jmortimer]

"What would you recommend to a client that wanted to use reloads with regards to best recordkeeping practices?"
I believe many/most reloaders label plastic storage boxes "1-5-11 9.5 Grains Unique" or even add weight of bullet, i.e. "255 grain swc" If you need an expert they either take the factory load and specs and make a forensic analysis or they would take your information/loads and make a forensic analysis. Either way you are paying an expert. The main case, as noted above, cited for the proposition of not using hand loads, involved a "suicide" where it appears a guy allegedly killed his girlfriend and tried to cover it up. He was convicted, and from what I can see, rightfully so. Most cases don't need arcane ballistic expert analysis. A good shoot is a good shoot. Many more persons have been wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit so based on that I recommend not leaving the house and having a rock solid alibi 24/7/265. Life is full of risk and the risk of being convicted solely due to using a reload is so infinitesimal that it is not an issue. I do think the "protection plan" offered by Ayoob et al is worthwhile due to insane litigation costs.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I believe many/most reloaders label plastic storage boxes "1-5-11 9.5 Grains Unique" or even add weight of bullet, i.e. "255 grain swc" If you need an expert they either take the factory load and specs and make a forensic analysis or they would take your information/loads and make a forensic analysis. Either way you are paying an expert.

Would you recommend making a point of notifying the investigating officers that you used a particular box of ammo in the gun and making sure they took that box with them to avoid questions of evidence tampering?

Most cases don't need arcane ballistic expert analysis. A good shoot is a good shoot.

I'm sure that is true; but it is those borderline cases I am thinking of. Since gunshot residue (GSR) is often used to determine the distance between the shooter and the shootee, any additional variables that make this subject to even more interpretation than usual concern me.

If the distance a shooting took place becomes a critical factor in whether to indict or not indict (or worse convict or not convict), then I'd like the evidence to be as uncomplicated as I can make it.

Life is full of risk and the risk of being convicted solely due to using a reload is so infinitesimal that it is not an issue. I do think the "protection plan" offered by Ayoob et al is worthwhile due to insane litigation costs.

I'd agree with that. You aren't going to be convicted solely because you used reloads. It will be a lot of little things that pile up against you - maybe the bad guy has multiple witnesses on his side and you just have yourself, they tell one story, you tell a different one. In a case like that, they are going to look at the forensic evidence and if the forensic evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation, they are likely to let the jury sort it out.

The thing is, I can't control the number of attackers, whether I have witnesses, where the attack happens. What I can control is what kind of ammo I load/records I keep to make the forensic evidence less ambiguous. Although the risk may be small, it seems to me that the reward (advanatages of handloads over factory ammo) is even smaller; but as I said, I don't reload so that likely colors my judgment as to the advantages.

[jmortimer]

"Would you recommend making a point of notifying the investigating officers that you used a particular box of ammo in the gun and making sure they took that box with them to avoid questions of evidence tampering?"
I would consult with an attorney before answering any questions. The "chain of evidence" is really an issue for the prosecution. If I was involved in a shooting and was using reloads I would "segregate" the box of ammunition and produce it only if required to do so. I should point out that I use reloads but I won't let my wife use them, not for legal reasons, but because I want her to have reliable ammunition and would feel bad if I short seated a primer and she had a FTF at the wrong time. I have never had an FTF with my reloads (did find an upside down primer but before I tried to use it). For her, I'll grab about 10 random cartridges out of the box and fire them to ensure they go bang. Then I trust the box but even factory ammunition can FTF.

[ltc444]

Most of the comments addressed the Criminal side of the equation.

You must also consider the civil suit which will be filed against you. Civil Ligators will use any thing they can to win their commission. Handloads for them will become cop killer bullets. We all know the furor these mythical bullets have caused.

Be safe use the Ammo used by your Local department.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by jmortimer: If you need an expert they either take the factory load and specs and make a forensic analysis or they would take your information/loads and make a forensic analysis.

Not sure what "if you need an expert" means, but the issue is whether, by chance, you will need to have evidence regarding the ammunition that you used admitted in court.

The specific rules of admissibility of forensic trace evidence differ among states; some states have adopted the new Federal rules ("Daubert"); some still use the old rules ("Frye"); and some have their own. The one thing they all have in common is that the source and validity of the examplar evidence must be unquestionable. Without third party records created using recognized, uniform processes, including, for example, the independent QA and lot acceptance documentation of manufacturer, that would not be the case. Records created by the accused certainly would not meet the threshold.

The main case, as noted above, cited for the proposition of not using hand loads, involved a "suicide" where it appears a guy allegedly killed his girlfriend and tried to cover it up.

The issue here has nothing to do with the kind of case at hand and everything to do with the admissibility of forensic trace evidence.

Most cases don't need arcane ballistic expert analysis.

If you say so, but gathering gunshot residue is routine, and if the absence of same on the person shot is used as an argument against the actor's account of a self defense shooting, and if other supporting evidence is skimpy, being able to counter that argument could be crucial.

A good shoot is a good shoot.

Eh?

The issue is whether the shooter can provide sufficient evidence to counter the otherwise damning evidence that he shot someone, an act to which he will have to admit in order to mount a defense of justification.

Life is full of risk and the risk of being convicted solely due to using a reload is so infinitesimal that it is not an issue.

No one will ever be convicted solely due to using a reload. He will be convicted or acquitted on the basis of the totality of the evidence, and if by chance his inability to present favorable evidence tilts the balance against him, woe be the defendant.

[m.p.driver]

I carry my reloads but they are new remington cases,185 gr. remington h.p.'s and fairly new unique powder.I dont hotroad the loads,they are loaded to factory velocities,and they are tried and true in my S&W .45.I shoot them because i have an ample supply of components,and i can load them for way cheaper than what i can now buy loaded rounds for.I stockpiled back in 1994.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I would consult with an attorney before answering any questions. The "chain of evidence" is really an issue for the prosecution.

It seems to me that if you want to introduce your client's handloads as exemplar loads to show a different theory of gunshot residue interpretation, then it is going to be an issue for the defense. Am I missing something there?

[Alaska444]

This issue came up in our CCW class where the instructor made it clear that it is a very bad practice to use reloads for self defense because of the duty to produce expert witnesses who are quite costly, open questions of the balistics of your reloads and many other issues.

The ammo industry already has all of these statistics and it also plays a role in proving exactly how far away you were at the time of the actual shoot which is based on these statitics. So not only could it undermine your pocketbook for the experts and the questioning of the actual reloading process that you use, it could also put into question whether you were within a 20 foot distance.

It is to say the least problematic at the very least. Get reliable high quality store bought ammo and save the box so the exact bullets are known. Reloads will cost you thousands of dollars in the very least and perhaps much more. Just not worth it.

[madmo44mag]

I have never carried factory ammo.
IMHO it is a none-issue in a clearly justified shooting.
From all I have read and seen, ammo only becomes an issue where there are other factors in play.
The court could care less what ammo was fired as long as the shooting was justified and occurred within the confines of the state and federal laws.
Simply put a “Good” shoot is a good shoot and a questionable shoot will bring the wolves.
As stated by others the civil trial may be your worst nightmare not the county or states case against you, depending on the laws of the state the shoot occurred. There are some states that if the shoot was justified you can’t be sued in civil court.

[Alaska444]

madmo44mag said

I have never carried factory ammo.
IMHO it is a none-issue in a clearly justified shooting.
From all I have read and seen, ammo only becomes an issue where there are other factors in play.
The court could care less what ammo was fired as long as the shooting was justified and occurred within the confines of the state and federal laws.
Simply put a “Good” shoot is a good shoot and a questionable shoot will bring the wolves.
As stated by others the civil trial may be your worst nightmare not the county or states case against you, depending on the laws of the state the shoot occurred. There are some states that if the shoot was justified you can’t be sued in civil court.

That is just not the way a court case goes down with ballistics first of all dependent on powder charges to determine distance from the shooter and the "victim" in the case of a criminal action against you, likewise every aspect of the reloading technique utilized is critiqued by expert witnesses and actual demonstration of the reloading technique is required, then the bullets are tested by the ballistics expert, most likely another paid professional, then there is the lawyers on both sides and you get to pay for all of those people.

I forget the sum quoted by my CCW teacher who is a nationwide expert witness in many gun cases, but I believe he stated it adds $100,000 to the defense costs to document the reload issue. His point is that it is far cheaper to just get reliable high quality ammo that comes with the experts from the factory that makes it. They already have all of the data and tables at hand.

It thus is costly to defend and jeopardizes your defense especially if you use high powered loads outside of the traditional ammo loads. So, I am not in the least an expert myself, but that was the experience and opinion of someone who is. As several have already stated, just buy a box and keep the original box you bought it in. Change out your ammo every six months as well was another recommendation.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Simply put a “Good” shoot is a good shoot

You just don't get it! It's the jury who will determine whether it's a good shoot or not. That determination may very well be based solely on the distance between the shooter and shootee. If, for example, the shooter claims he was being attacked with a knife at a distance of 10 feet when he fired, and a ballistics expert claims that based on (lack of) gunshot residue, the attacker must have been at least 50 feet away, all of a sudden the "imminent" threat doesn't become so imminent.

While I have every confidence in the reliability and efficacy of my handloads, I simply don't carry them for defensive use, when virtually 100% reliable and effective factory ammo is available in each of my defense calibers. True, it might never come up, but spending $50 for a box of factory premium defense loads once a year is far better than gambling on saving $30 and having to spend an extra $100,000 on defense if I ever have to use them.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by madmo44mag: I have never carried factory ammo.
IMHO it is a none-issue in a clearly justified shooting.
From all I have read and seen, ammo only becomes an issue where there are other factors in play.
The court could care less what ammo was fired as long as the shooting was justified and occurred within the confines of the state and federal laws.
Simply put a “Good” shoot is a good shoot and a questionable shoot will bring the wolves.

I guess it depends on how you define a "clearly justified shooting".

How about his: you are going to your car, and two men jump you in the dark. They threaten you, and at least one has a knife. Having no choice, you shoot. One person is injured, and the other escapes.

Would that be a "clearly justified shooting"? Would it be a "good shoot"? Or would it be a "questionable shoot"?

The problem is, the incident did not take place on a sound stage with an audience, and there are no video recordings that can be played back. Whether you are charged, and the success of your defense of justification if you are, will both depend upon your testimony, which will of course be disputed, and upon the evidence that you can produce in support of your account of the incident.

So here is the evidence:

• Forensic evidence proves that you fired the shots with your weapon.
• You testify that you fired from near your car at close range because you were in imminent danger--the men had the opportunity and ability to kill or seriously injure you, the y had threatened to do so, and shooting was your only alternative.
• They both testify that you fired at them from the dark without provocation while they happened to be near your car.
• No knife is found--you say that the guy who escaped must have taken it and gotten rid of it; they say that they didn't have knives.
• Your empties have rolled in the wind and down a slope, and their location proves nothing conclusively.
• No trace of gunshot residue is found on the person who was shot.

At this point you are at great risk, and if you are charged and tried, your fate is out of your hands. It is not at all unlikely that the prosecution will argue that the lack of GSR on the victim is consistent with the testimony of the other two and indicates that the victim was sufficiently distant from you, the defendant, that imminent danger simply did not exist--that you were not justified in shooting.

Now suppose that tests of your ammunition could show that GSR would not have been deposited at close range and could cast doubt on that argument, but because the ammunition was hand loaded, the tests cannot be admitted due to the rules of admissibility of forensic trace evidence.

At that point, is it the court that cares what ammunition you used, or is it you?

The likelihood of that happening may be remote, but considering the potential consequences, is it worth the risk, when it is probably about the only thing that you can control in advance?

PS--it looks like Gary L Griffiths has already nailed it.

[Frank Ettin]

[1] The legal issues regarding the use of handloads for self defense have been discussed here. See:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423771

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391656

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394682

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397127

[2] Just some high points --

1. Yes, a good shoot is a good shoot. But you won't be deciding if it was a good shoot. Other folks will. And if you're on trial, someone who matters didn't think it was a good shoot. Now it's not a good shoot unless the jury says so.
2. If you've been involved in a shooting in which you claim self defense and if, for some reason, gunshot residue (GSR) test results will be important to your defense, GSR test results will not be admissible into evidence if you used handloads. It won't matter how good your records may be. They are suspect, because they are yours. You will not be able to establish the necessary foundation for admission of GSR test results of your handloads because you will not be able to satisfactorily establish that the handloads tested were the same as the rounds fired in the incident.
3. It will be highly unlikely that any members of your jury will have any knowledge of or interest in guns or shooting. Your reasons for using handloads will strike them as too "inside baseball", and they will probably not be receptive to them.
4. If you're on trial in a shooting in which you're claiming self defense, you probably have a number of problems. Handloads can become one more thing that will need to be explained, one more "wild card." As a general rule in court, the less you have to explain, the better off you'll be. You won't have to explain handloads if you didn't use them and used factory ammunition instead.
5. There aren't cases on the issue because it's most likely that there are very few self defense incidents in which handloads have been used.


[3] Some of these points are discussed in greater detail and at greater length in the threads I've linked to.

[4] I practiced law for over 30 years before retiring a few years ago. I will not use handloads for self defense applications.

[5] The case alluded to in post 4 is the case of Daniel Bias. It was not a self defense case. But that doesn't matter for our purposes. What is significant for us in Bias is a matter of the rules of evidence, and those rules and their application are the same in all types of cases.

Daniel Bias was charged with, and ultimately convicted of, killing his wife. He claimed she committed suicide. Part of the prosecution's case was that test firings of commercial ammunition bearing the same headstamp as the round fired showed GSR deposits on the target at the distance from which Bias claimed his wife shot herself. But there was no GSR on the shot wife.

Bias claimed that the gun his wife used to shoot herself with was loaded with very light handloads he prepared for her self defense use. They were very light because Bias' wife was sensitive to recoil.

Test firings by an expert engaged by Bias of ammunition that Bias claimed matched the loading of the round that killed his wife showed no GSR deposits on the target at the critical distance. However, the judge would not allow those test results to be entered into evidence on the grounds that there was insufficient foundation to establish that the ammunition tested did indeed match the death round.

[6] The lesson for us from Bias is that if we fire a gun in self defense and it becomes necessary or desirable to our legal defense to look to GSR test evidence to help corroborate our story, e. g., our distance from the alleged assailant when we fired, we might be out of luck if we used handloaded ammunition.

That might not come up in every self defense case, but we have no way of knowing in advance if it might come up in ours, if we're ever unlucky enough to be in that position. But it does come up as shown in this post on another board by Marty Hayes (who's a member here as well).

[7] The result in Bias is actually consistent with basic evidentiary principles.

Say you may want to introduce GSR evidence to corroborate your story about how the event took place.

You therefore engage an expert to conduct tests reproducing the circumstances of the event. You want the test results to validate your story of how things took place. If you're claiming self defense, you're hoping that your expert witness can take ammunition which can be established to be substantially identical to the ammunition you shot the alleged attacker with under conditions replicating the shooting as you have contended it took place and produce GSR similar to the GSR produced at the scene. And that will, you hope, allow your expert to testify that in his opinion the shooting took place as you had described it.

That can only work, and you can get the sort of expert testimony you need in your defense, if the judge can be satisfied that the ammunition tested by your expert was substantially identical to the ammunition with which you shot the guy you claim attacked you.

If you used handloads, the only evidence you can offer to support the claim that the ammunition tested was substantially identical to the ammunition used in the claimed self defense event will be your testimony to that effect. Your testimony on that point would be suspect because you are vitally interested in the outcome and there can be no independent corroboration of your claim as to what was in the ammunition you used to defend yourself with.

On the other hand, if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, the you could show that Federal Cartridge Company manufactures large quantities subject to certain quality controls to a certain degree of uniformity. In addition, Federal Cartridge Company is a non-involved third party making ammunition for sale to the general public. That would most likely establish an adequate foundation to secure admission into evidence of GSR test results of exemplar Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto ammunition in support of your expert's opinion.

It's all about being able to perform a test under conditions that a judge can be convinced mirror the event sufficiently to permit an expert to draw valid conclusions about the event from the test results.

[8] To me, the avoidance of handloads is a simple decision. They're really not going to give me any advantage on the street, so I have no reason to take any risk, no matter how small, by using them.

Perhaps if I am ever involved in a self defense shooting handloads will be the least of my worries. But by avoiding using handloads for self defense handloads go from being among the least of my worries to handloads being no worry at all.

If I ever have to use a gun in self defense, my lawyer and I will have a lot to do and a lot to concern ourselves with. I see no reason to throw a wild card like handloads into the mix.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Old thread it's true so:

1. The good shoot cliche, as mentioned is useless, this discussion starts when you are going to trial or civil court as the shoot is evaluated as not being good by those who can get you in court. Forget that cliche!

2. If you are in court, weapons related issues can influence mock juries - as seen in studies. Some folks don't like to here that - tough. Go to court dressed in your gun loonie, killer clothes - go for it!

3. Look at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=443854. In this castle doctrine thread - note the stories are mentioning hollow points - not reloads but shows you that public perception might be influenced by media reports.

[lamarw]

Number 1 - Will you even be charged with a crime by the DA if it was a justified defensive shooting.

Number 2 - If the DA finds a reason to charge you, then it will go before a Grand Jury to indict you prior to you facing a jury trial. (You are in trouble for other reasons than your type of ammo.)

Number 3 - If you get to the point of a jury trial, then most likely you have a lot more to worry about than what type of round you fired. (You are in a bunch of trouble now for reasons other than the type of ammo you used.)

Number 4 - If in a State like New Jersey, if it is a justified defensive shooting you could be charged if you used hollow points. I doubt the charges will be for murder but for the law you violated (I think; although this was not the question.)

If some of you lawyers know I am wrong about the above, please correct me.

[jmortimer]

Bottom line, there is no case of a self-defense shooting with reloads leading to a conviction of an innocent person. Never - Ever. Further, if GSR or other ammunition related testimony is required you will need to retain an expert regardless of what ammunition is used. There is no huge disparity of cost. Expert witness testimony has a cost and market price like anything else. It will cost a bundle of $$$ regardless. You can't just introduce manufacturer data without a foundation. Join Ayoob's defense group if you are afraid as it seems like a good deal for the $$$. I'm not worried about it as I'm more likely to win a 100 million dollar lottery than be wrongfully convicted for using my own "home made" ammunition. If no one has ever been wrongfully convicted for using "self- loaded" ammunition then why all the fuss?

[kraigwy]

I believe he stated it adds $100,000 to the defense costs to document the reload issue.

I'd like to see the court case on this, frankly I think someone's CCW instructor is blowing smoke.

[Frank Ettin]

Your fundamental premise is just flat wrong

Originally Posted by lamarw

Number 1 - Will you even be charged with a crime by the DA if it was a justified defensive shooting.

Consider --

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona thought he was justified. 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 Oaklahoma thought he was justified. Nonetheless, despite this happening 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 grinder before finally being acquitted.

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona, thought he was justified. But 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.

You don't have the final say. The reality is that sometimes there will be a disagreement about the question of your justification. Now it won't be a "good shoot" unless and until the trial jury says it is.

Originally Posted by lamarw

Number 2 - If the DA finds a reason to charge you, then it will go before a Grand Jury to indict you prior to you facing a jury trial. (You are in trouble for other reasons than your type of ammo.)

Not all States require indictment by grand jury. In some States, the DA can file a complaint, and you can be held to answer.

Yes, if you're charged and held to answer, you have more problems than just your handloaded ammunition. But the fewer problems you have to deal with the better. Handloads won't be any kind of a problem unless you use them.

Originally Posted by lamarw

Number 3 - If you get to the point of a jury trial, then most likely you have a lot more to worry about than what type of round you fired. (You are in a bunch of trouble now for reasons other than the type of ammo you used.)

Yes, but do you want more worries? Handloads won't be one of your worries if you don't use them.

Originally Posted by lamarw

Number 4 - If in a State like New Jersey, if it is a justified defensive shooting you could be charged if you used hollow points. I doubt the charges will be for murder but for the law you violated (I think; although this was not the question.)

Even in New Jersey one may lawfully possess hollow points in one's home.

Originally Posted by jmortimer

Bottom line there is no case of self-defense shooting leading to a conviction of an innocent person....

Nope -- Harold Fish comes immediately to mind (see above).

Originally Posted by jmortimer

...Further, if GSR or other ammunition related testimony is required you will need to retain an expert regardless of what ammunition is used...

The thing is that if you used handloads, your expert probably won't be able to help you.

Originally Posted by jmortimer

...You can't just introduce manufacturer data without a foundation....

Of course, but you'll most likely get the evidence in. If you used handloads, you probably won't get your GSR test results into evidence no matter how much foundation you try to lay.

Originally Posted by jmortimer

...If no one has ever been wrongfully convicted for using "self- loaded" ammunition then why all the fuss.

As Bartholomew Roberts has put it:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

...The thing is, I can't control the number of attackers, whether I have witnesses, where the attack happens. What I can control is what kind of ammo I load/records I keep to make the forensic evidence less ambiguous. Although the risk may be small, it seems to me that the reward (advanatages of handloads over factory ammo) is even smaller...

Originally Posted by kraigwy

I'd like to see the court case on this,...

Are you volunteering?

[kraigwy]

Originally Posted by kraigwy
I'd like to see the court case on this,...

Are you volunteering?

Volunterring for what, I said I want to see the court case where the guy had to spend 100K to defend his reloads.

But yes I do carry reloads, I carried them most of the time I was in LE and I carry them now in my pocket pistol.

I also got a ruling from the WY Attorney General on the subject. His response was if its not prohibited ammunition per federal law, then there is nothing wrong with reloads in a SD situation.

In teaching classed, I don't make recommendations, I put out the options, included the Ruling from the WY AG, and any ligit court case I can find.

That's why I asked for the case.

But I only present court cases not internet rumors. If someone in my class ask me what I carry I tell them "safe ammo that I have shot enough to feel confident with".

[jmortimer]

"Harold Fish comes immediately to mind"
Not my mind or his attorneys' minds. The issues for Mr. Fish revolved around the exclusion of evidence and jury instructions not reloads. The only issue relating to the ammunition was the prosecution making hay over the fact that he used 10mm hollow point ammunition and that the ammunition was "more powerful" that that used by the local police. So again, no one ever in the history of the United States was wrongfully convicted of using their own ammunition. Never - Ever. BTW I use flat point hard cast bullets, compliant with the Hague Convention, so the dumb @ss prosecutor and judge in the Fish case could not have made a big deal over my non-hollow point ammunition.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by kraigwy

...I asked for the case....

And if you'd bothered to read this thread, the question of "a case" was addressed in posts 15 and 38.

The reality is that it appears that reloads are very seldom used in self defense. Al Norris did some research on the subject. In a period of over 30 years in Idaho handloads were used in only 12 self defense shooting incidents. Six weren't prosecuted; apparently they were clearly justified. Six were prosecuted, resulting in six convictions -- four on pleas and two on jury verdicts (see http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388901). In the cases that resulted in a conviction, drugs and/or alcohol was apparently also involved.

Originally Posted by kraigwy

...I also got a ruling from the WY Attorney General on the subject. His response was if its not prohibited ammunition per federal law, then there is nothing wrong with reloads in a SD situation...

[1] An AG opinion is not law.

[2] An AG opinion will not solve your evidentiary problem is GSR test results would be helpful.

[3] An AG opinion is limited to the exact facts posited in requesting the opinion.

[4] Handloads are not prohibited ammunition. That doesn't mean that GSR test results will be admissible. That doesn't mean the the use of handloads could not have a negative effect on a jury.

Originally Posted by jmortimer

Not my mind or his attorneys' minds. The issues for Mr. Fish revolved around the exclusion of evidence and jury instructions not reloads...

Your original statement in post 41 said nothing about handloads:

Originally Posted by jmortimer

Bottom line, there is no case of a self-defense shooting leading to a conviction of an innocent person. Never - Ever....

Originally Posted by jmortimer

...The only issue relating to the ammunition was the prosecution making hay over the fact that he used 10mm hollow point ammunition and that the ammunition was "more powerful" that that used by the local police....

And in a post verdict interview a Harold Fisher juror commented that the members of the jury were troubled by Fish's use of JHPs. That illustrates that such things as the ammunition used can have an effect on the jury.

I suspect the Fish's lawyer didn't deal with the JHP issue too well. I think it's manageable.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jmortimer

BTW I use flat point hard cast bullets, compliant with the Hague Convention, so the dumb @ss prosecutor and judge in the Fish case could not have made a big deal over my non-hollow point ammunition.

Of course they could. The judge won't make a big deal out of it -- although as fiddletown and others have noted he CAN prevent you from admitting expert testimony about your home-brewed ammo.

But the prosecutor can certainly make a big deal out of it. The thing about lawyers is, they get paid to use words in the way that presents THEIR (or their client's) view in the way most advantageous to them. If you're on trial, the deck is already stacked against you because many members of the jury start with the assumption that you would NOT be on trial if you didn't do something wrong. I know it isn't supposed to be that way ... but it IS that way. So you need to convince the jury that you did NOT do something wrong.

Whatever bullets you choose, if you handload you're screwed. If you use hollow-point, the prosecutor will portray you as a bloodthirsty killer who deliberately chose the bullets guaranteed to do the most damage and to cause the most pain and suffering.

"But I use flat point hard cast bullets, compliant with the Hague Convention," you say.

And the prosecutor turns to the jury and says, "AHA! Do you hear that, ladies and gentlemen? The Hague Convention, which governs the conduct of WAR!. This man before you didn't go to the local gun shop and buy commercial, self defense ammunition. No, that wasn't good enough, wasn't deadly enough for him. No, ladies and gentlemen, he deliberately loaded his own ammunition using BULLETS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO BE USED IN A WAR. These bullets weren't designed for self defense, ladies and gentlemen, they were designed for KILLING HUMAN BEINGS!"

Spent much time in courtrooms? I have, as an expert witness. And I promise you, no matter how clearly and rationally you think you have stated or explained something, if the opposing attorney is worth anything at all, he'll tie you up in knots. And if your attorney isn't extremely good at UNtying knots, game over.

(I have gotten to where I loathe being an expert witness, because in my field my own client's attorney usually doesn't know anything, and usually doesn't want to spend the time with me upfront to learn enough to untie the knots. So when anything gets twisted while I'm on the stand, it's all I can do to keep from jumping out of the witness stand during re-direct and strangling my client's attorney for allowing the opposition to blatantly misconstrue what I just testified to.)

[kraigwy]

An AG opinion is not law

Nor is there a law that says you can't use reloads,

HOWEVER,

Being the State AG is the highest LE Officer in the State, I will take his opionion long before I take the opinion of someone on the internet.

Carry what you want, but no one has ever shown me a court case where carrying reloads instead of factory ammo has lead to a conviction.

I think one who is really concerned should research the subject his or her self, make you decission on case law, not internet gossip.

[jmortimer]

"Spent much time in courtrooms?"
Yes and a good expert is worth every penny. My favorite involved a mechanical engineer who testified one way for Ford Motor and when he testified for my friend from law school, the defense attorney pointed out how he changed his testimony 180 degrees and his answer - "Yes I did and it cost Ford a bundle" - made my friend a bundle. So things do not alwys turn out how you suggest.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by kraigwy

Nor is there a law that says you can't use reloads,

HOWEVER,

Being the State AG is the highest LE Officer in the State, I will take his opionion long before I take the opinion of someone on the internet....

We understand that you are not a lawyer so you can't really be expected to understand what an AG opinion is and its limitations.

Yes, there is no law against using handloads. That's true. But that is not the point. The points are:

• The ammunition used can have an effect on jury perception. This point was touched upon by Glenn Meyer in post 39.
• If handloads were used and GSR test results would have been helpful to your defense, you'll be out of luck. This point was discussed in several posts in this thread, by Bartholomew Roberts, OldMarksman and I.

I'll wager that your AG opinion doesn't touch on either of those points.

Originally Posted by kraigwy

...I think one who is really concerned should research the subject his or her self, make you decission on case law, not internet gossip....

Bartholomew Roberts and I are not basing our conclusions on Internet gossip. We are lawyers and have some professional understanding of the subject. Massad Ayoob is not basing his conclusions on Internet gossip, but rather on his years of experience as an expert witness and as Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The reality is that there is precious little case law even remotely on point. That's not necessarily a guarantee that the use of handloads is benign. It merely illustrates that the question hasn't come up to an appellate court.

When lawyers are faced with situations in which there is no good case law for guidance, which happens fairly regularly in real life, we simply have to fall back on our professional judgment.