quote:

One semiwadcutter bullet looks pretty much like another, at least in the eyes of the state crime lab in that case.

And if an "expert" witness couldn't convince the jury otherwise he isn't much of an "expert"!

I can almost tell you what kind of mold bullets come from simply by looking at the part that is exposed and the state crime lab can't? That won't wash, Mas.

If a simple bumpkin like me could figure it out it would seem that the crime lab and Federal's experts surely could. Someone failed, and it is convienient to blame others. If I had had part in the testimony, jury or any part for that matter, in the trial and I believed Bias was innocent, I would have to say I, that's I, failed, period. My expert testimony, or lack thereof, is part of what got him convicted, simple as that.

You still don't get it, Skip. The judge made it clear he would not allow testimony on the handloads. I did not testify.

Evidence that would have exculpated him and established his innocence was kept out because evidence manufactured by the defendant is seen as self-serving and not normally allowed.

quote:

Originally posted by Massad Ayoob:
You still don't get it, Skip. The judge made it clear he would not allow testimony on the handloads. I did not testify.

Evidence that would have exculpated him and established his innocence was kept out because evidence manufactured by the defendant is seen as self-serving and not normally allowed.

Just for clarification, Mas (sorry I'm a little fuzzy this morning as the alergies are kicking my butt). Was there in fact residue on her hands that would have exonerated the defendant had it (the GSR) simply been allowed to be admitted?

I come here to learn about bullets, and I get to learn a little Latin as a bonus.

The Griess Test link makes it clear that you'll only have valid results if THE firearm and THE ammunition are available for testing. Without both the whole exercise is a waste of time.

I have a doctor friend that told me "women rarely shoot themselves in the head". They are vain enough to usually shoot for the chest and the autopsy usually takes that into account. I don't know the exact location of the fatal wound, except it was to the head, but shot placement, i.e. temple or forehead, would have a bearing too.

The one case I'm familiar with involved a .410 shotgun and it was aimed for the chest. She survived the incident.

The doctor friend has read the case reports and he isn't convinced of Bias' innocence either.

quote:

Mas: The judge made it clear he would not allow testimony on the handloads.

Mas, I read your article and this thread rather carefully but this is something that I did not know/understand. Maybe this is the key to us not getting each other points.

Can you, please, elaborate on the reasons judge gave for this decision. Why your testimony on duplicate loads was not allowed while state's testimony on RP handloads was? I understand that there were all together 4 trials and an appeal - did any of them come back to the question of testing the handloads?

Mike

One thing that everyone might want to know is that "the admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed [on appeal] absent an abuse of that discretion." "Abuse of discretion" is defined as an action that it totally contrary to the law and the facts. (I haven't put in citations because they'll vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the concept is essentially universal in our system.)

In other words, the trial judge gets to decide what evidence comes in, and unless he's a total jackass (for example, if the judge were to say on the record, "No, that man can't testify. He's an Indian, and I don't trust Indians."), the appellate courts won't do anything about his decision.

So, it really depends on the trial judge. Pinky has said (and I believe that I have said) that the number of cases in which GSR exemplars are necessary are pretty small. Still, it's a risk. Now, a judge might allow in evidence of exemplars made with tests of the other ammo in that box you loaded, or he might not.

You pretty much have no recourse if he decides the wrong way.

Mas makes an interesting point here...

I'm making a couple of assumptions here and I don't know the answers to some of the questions really needed to sort Bias out... but...

It would seem Bias used factory swaged LSWC bullets based on the comment by Mas... it would be VERY easy to tell a cast SWC from a swaged bullet.

It also seems the defense team was pretty bad... some expert witnesses on hand loading could probably have cleared the issues easily..

The more I hear about Bias, I'm convinced there was a lot of BIAS in the case... on the part of the court... and it very well might not have made any difference what the defense showed in evidence if the judge was prejudiced already.

If there is a lesson here it might be don't use commercial swaged bullets that can be confused with factory loads in light loads... another lesson might be "stay out of the occupied states... you will not get justice there."

FWIW

Chuck



One semiwadcutter bullet looks pretty much like another, at least in the eyes of the state crime lab in that case. If it had been a factory load, there would have been GSR present to prove Bias' contention that the gun was in her hand when it discharged during the struggle to disarm her.

Uhh, Erich, not a pretty picture... This way you guys will eventually convince me to carry a blade. But it will be a factory made and factory sharpened blade. Or else judge may decide that since I sharpened the blade myself it is not admissible.

Mike

quote:

there would have been GSR present to prove Bias' contention that the gun was in her hand when it discharged during the struggle to disarm her.

That's another point I don't think has been covered/addressed. Was there GSR on her hand? GSR can be present even from being close to a fired weapon, but it should have been evident in this case, since a revolver was used, that normally would present a lot of GSR through the barrel to cylinder gap.

quote:

You still don't get it, Skip. The judge made it clear he would not allow testimony on the handloads. I did not testify.

Mas, That was one point I did not understand. Thank you for the clarification. Understanding that HIS handloads weren't admissable is one thing. Not allowing ANY testimony about handloading period is a travisty of justice, IMHO.

Even if speaking to the point of the bullet recovered COULDN'T have come from the purchased round the prosecution said couldn't be addressed? That would have shown the round fired at least wasn't the purchased ammo they said he used.

That would have raised the question that the GSR they expected wouldn't be realistic, right?

It just seems some of the things brought out of the Bias case aren't kosher.

Here's a thread, including a poll, on this issue from 1 1/2 years ago. THREAD
Usually the ones supporting the use of factory loads are those in areas like New England, California and Illinois. Those supporting the use of handloads are usually from the south and western states (excluding California and maybe Washington).

The LEOs and ex-LEOs can't seem to get over the forced regimentation they are/were subjected to. What's permissible for civilians isn't necessarily permissible for them, similar to the military being restricted on what they can use.

New Jersey is now a nightmare for civilian gun owners, which is where Bias was originally tried.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul5388:
Here's a thread, including a poll, on this issue from 1 1/2 years ago. THREAD
Usually the ones supporting the use of factory loads are those in areas like New England, California and Illinois. Those supporting the use of handloads are usually from the south and western states (excluding California and maybe Washington).

The LEOs and ex-LEOs can't seem to get over the forced regimentation they are/were subjected to. What's permissible for civilians isn't necessarily permissible for them, similar to the military being restricted on what they can use.

New Jersey is now a nightmare for civilian gun owners, which is where Bias was originally tried.

I'm going from what our CCW instructor told us about ammo choice. According to him, ccw holders must use factory ammo under california law. I'm not a lawyer, and I have never seen anything copied from the California Penal Code, but I will play it safe living here in the PRK, and take our CCW instructors word for it.

Thanks, Paul. I hadn't seen that.

Interesting that on a forum for handloaders, presumably peopled by people into handloading and good at it, that 38% still chose not to carry handloads for SD.

I doubt that retired LEOs and military carry factory rounds because they're robots accustomed to regimentation. If anything, they're glad to be away from regimentation and happy to have more chance to express their individuality.

The preference for factory ammo, particularly among the cops, is more likely that they are deeply trained in the rules of evidence. They have reason to be aware of the problems that handloads can cause in court for those who use them in SD.

What a week to be out of town....
11 page thread on the use of handloads with involvment from Massad Ayoob ..... the things we do for love....