The Bias case isn't a good example to use for this as no one on this forum was in the court to hear the evidence that was presented. And since it happened so long ago there is precious little an internet search will find for you, which I had tried to do for years. The only thing I could find came up about a year ago when a newspaper article appeared about Mr. Bias being charged with a weapons violation while being an ex-convict.
According to this article, as best as I can recall, Mr. Bias' first trial ended in a hung jury, he was tried again and was convicted, but it was overturned on appeal. The first trials were charging him with intentionally killing his wife and failed to get a conviction that would stick. He was then charged with killing his wife by accident and that is the case that sent him to prison. The artilce also mentioned something about him making a statement to the first responders that he didn't mean to kill her, which was what got him the guilty conviction. Apparently, from reading the article, the part that got the first conviction overturned was a lack of the prosecution to prove intent on 'why he shot her' and wasn't about 'did he shoot her'. But without un-biased first hand information from the trial, we'll never know for sure.
As others have pointed out, as far as I know there have been no real cases where an innocent person was tried, convicted, or even harassed because they used reloaded ammunition. I do feel that it may actually work against you if do have ammunition that has exemplar evidence or expert technicians to testify against you, but that is just my personal opinion and I'm not forcing it on anyone. I am not an attorney, but I would think that if there was a shadow of a doubt about what you had in the firearm and the opposing counsel didn't listen, that would be grounds for a mis-trial because they can't tamper with evidence either. That's what expert firearms witnesses are supposed to be for, unless it just an attempt to confuse the jury.
So I agree, this is a useless debate that has no basis in fact and only serves to create fear and phobias in the public sector. But since I have nothing better to do, let's see if we can get to page 8.
By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier but if I was an attorney and someone told me that they carried the same ammunition that the local police did, I'd have their butts for breakfast and say something like, "well, if you really want to carry a gun and ammunition like a police officer, why don't you go get a job as one". It's all about making you look like an idiot in the juries minds, and that's what they go to college for.
According to this article, as best as I can recall, Mr. Bias' first trial ended in a hung jury, he was tried again and was convicted, but it was overturned on appeal. The first trials were charging him with intentionally killing his wife and failed to get a conviction that would stick. He was then charged with killing his wife by accident and that is the case that sent him to prison. The artilce also mentioned something about him making a statement to the first responders that he didn't mean to kill her, which was what got him the guilty conviction. Apparently, from reading the article, the part that got the first conviction overturned was a lack of the prosecution to prove intent on 'why he shot her' and wasn't about 'did he shoot her'. But without un-biased first hand information from the trial, we'll never know for sure.
As others have pointed out, as far as I know there have been no real cases where an innocent person was tried, convicted, or even harassed because they used reloaded ammunition. I do feel that it may actually work against you if do have ammunition that has exemplar evidence or expert technicians to testify against you, but that is just my personal opinion and I'm not forcing it on anyone. I am not an attorney, but I would think that if there was a shadow of a doubt about what you had in the firearm and the opposing counsel didn't listen, that would be grounds for a mis-trial because they can't tamper with evidence either. That's what expert firearms witnesses are supposed to be for, unless it just an attempt to confuse the jury.
So I agree, this is a useless debate that has no basis in fact and only serves to create fear and phobias in the public sector. But since I have nothing better to do, let's see if we can get to page 8.
By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier but if I was an attorney and someone told me that they carried the same ammunition that the local police did, I'd have their butts for breakfast and say something like, "well, if you really want to carry a gun and ammunition like a police officer, why don't you go get a job as one". It's all about making you look like an idiot in the juries minds, and that's what they go to college for.
