I don't have a private practice (pretty much prohibited due to my employment) but I do have a private consulting business in which I am willing to work with attorneys in addressing the needs of their (generally LE) clients. That way, I am not representing clients. Just started it, so it's a fledgling.

That expert should not have been qualified under ER702. I used one from the WSP lab, and he was squared away. In fact, both of us had to work hard to not drift into shooter lingo/slang, and in the appellate brief, I had to footnote the correct nomenclature just be safe.

And yes, your theory as to why it would not be relevant is sound. As a general rule, the firearm itself is not evidence, as long as there is no question that the round came from it (which does not require the firearm to be introduced, just the test results) and that it was an intentional discharge, which only requires that the examination and testing once the firearm is taken into custody is completed. In an OIS, unless there are some really odd questions, the examination, etc. should be completed and the firearm returned within a couple of hours. Member "Nyeti" has written some really good stuff about this in another setting.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.