reloads and the law

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Well, I guess I will wait until it is closer. I wanna be the one to send it over the edge! Anything to help a friend out! :D
 
Jellybean said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don`t need any help from an attorney to look like an idiot, I can do that perfectly well all by myself!!! There now we are at 8 pages.
 
Last edited:
Does this make it 8??

deadhorselogo.jpg
 
smith crazy said:
No, I know almost nothing and I like to keep it that way. Keeps me from thinking of myself as an "EXPERT" ;)


What I do know is that it means NOTHING about what the lawyers, good or bad, think or thought, it means nothing what you or other think or thought, it was what the people on the jury thought and NOW that is all that matters.
Click to expand...

I kinda sensed the first part of that, Skip, but thanks for the confirmation. As to the second part, it does indeed come down to what the jury thinks...and the use of his reloaded ammo kept critical exculpatory evidence from reaching that jury, resulting in Bias' conviction.

Jelly, whether Internet debaters choose to throw Bias under the bus or not (and personally, based on the totality of the evidence, I don't think he was guilty), the fact remains that the same rules of evidence apply whether the theory of the case is self-defense or anything else.

I see the Bias case as a canary in the mine shaft that warned us this could happen. Much more telling is the fact that in five years of Internet debate, NO ONE has been able to cite a case where a handloader's records or word for what was in the load WAS accepted as evidence.

Given that fact, I agree it's a dead horse. I'm just glad I wasn't the one who reanimated it here.
 
smith crazy said:
33 years ago, the little woman and I!

Man we were young!



youngunsgettingmarried.jpg
Click to expand...

A very handsome couple...

FWIW- After getting sucked into this same argument about three different times, now I just follow along and smile. I know what's in my gun will go bang and go where I've aimed it. At the end of the day that is all that matters.
And I'm pretty sure we're successfully killing this thread before it gets to my predicted 12 pages. I do not mind being wrong in my prediction.
 
Massad Ayoob said:
I kinda sensed the first part of that, Skip, but thanks for the confirmation. As to the second part, it does indeed come down to what the jury thinks...and the use of his reloaded ammo kept critical exculpatory evidence from reaching that jury, resulting in Bias' conviction.
Click to expand...

Well, touche'. ;)

Of course, I have never testified as an "Expert Witness" either. Have you?

My definition of an "expert" may differ from Webster though. Let me break it down though:

It is a compound word with a hidden meaning. EX is something "former" and if you say it right, "spert" is a drip under pressure! ;)

So, no, I am not a former drip under pressure. Whether it be from my sponsors (that may just be ammo makers) or whoever!

FWIW
 
Be careful of playing the odds . . .

I used to keep our house gun loaded with light handloads. Now I carry only factory loads because I don't want to play against the odds. Maybe there is a 98 or even 99 % chance that my handloads would pose no legal problem for me. But what about that small shadow of doubt?

1. True, most shooting cases don't even go to trial at all. The sissy DA pleads them down.
2. Also, odds are that nobody will know or even care if I'm using handloaded ammo.
3. Thirdly, if my ammo was called into question, I'm pretty sure I can defend my choice. (But at what cost?)

Even so, is it worth the risk? The problem with playing the odds is that one or two percent chance that I might end up having to pay a lawyer money I can't afford to clear my good name. Once you've been mugged and shot at ( as I have been ), you start to see that the odds of getting robbed or having to use a gun in self-defense are greater than you might otherwise think.

I carry a gun everywhere, even to church, NOT because of some way-out, obscure possibility that I might need it, but because I have fairly reasonable expectations that it could happen again. Despite the hype and lies to the contrary, violent crime in Indianapolis is sky-rocketing. If it happens to me again, hopefully I'll be ready. I'll be loaded with popular brands and styles of defense ammo. That's just me.

(However, I do keep a substantial stash of handloaded defense ammo in store, in the event of a civil defense emergency. The "gloves are off" when it comes to a terrorist attack.)
 
Mas, as a member of Mr. Bias' defense team, I wouldn't even ask you if he were guilty or not, the same goes for his attorneys or even the prosecution. Unfortunately, the same goes for opinions or information about the case because the result will be the same as the trial, there are two sides to every story.

No, I can not tell you a case where a court accepted a handloaders records as to what was in a reload used in self defense, because I've never heard of a case where it was really a question. On the other hand, I've never heard of a case where handloads did really cause a problem, based on unbiased information about a case. The fact that the court did not allow your testimony about Mr. Bias' handloads only tells me that it had no bearing on the real evidence in the case, and his attorney claiming that it was what lost the case might have been because it was the only hope he had of introducing a 'reasonable doubt' to the jury.

I can certainly understand a judge or attorney not understanding about "reloading", but if it actually has bearing on the case it can be just as important as who pulled the trigger and would certainly be cause for a new "fair" trial.

I can easily make my ammunition "factory ammo" in every legal sense of the word, but since I'm not going to sell it I don't have to. It is perfectly legal and legitimate under the law as to how it's manufactured and used and the local courts have no real jurisdiction under the federal laws under which it falls to say otherwise, especially if they don't understand it. As I've said earlier, not all factory ammo is the same and not all of it would be treated the same under this discussion. Some of it would be exactly the same as my reloads.
 
Last edited:
Jellybean said:
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 article 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.
Click to expand...

Ok, so there's at least two good lessons to be learned from the Bias case:

- Stick with factory ammo

- Keep your mouth shut until you speak to your attorney

Anyone know anyone around here who has been saying this for Months, yeArs, and decades???
 
FTG-05 said:
Ok, so there's at least two good lessons to be learned from the Bias case:

- Stick with factory ammo

- Keep your mouth shut until you speak to your attorney

Anyone know anyone around here who has been saying this for Months, yeArs, and decades???
Click to expand...

My mom never said that.
 
Jellybean said:
Mas, as a member of Mr. Bias' defense team, I wouldn't even ask you if he were guilty or not, the same goes for his attorneys or even the prosecution. Unfortunately, the same goes for opinions or information about the case because the result will be the same as the trial, there are two sides to every story.
Click to expand...

Actually, there were three sides to this one: the defense case, which was the same from beginning to end; the state's original case of cold-blooded murder; and the state's theory in the final case of manslaughter due to negligent discharge. It's no secret that when the prosecution completely changes its theory of the case, it casts some doubts on the validity of the prosecution's case in its entirety.

Over the years, I've turned down more cases than I've taken. I took this one after review of the evidence showed virtually everything was consistent with Bias' account, except that there should have been GSR on the body if she was shot with a 158 grain Federal +P from the distance involved. Testing with replication of Bias' very mild handloads showed it was entirely possible that no GSR would be present from that distance. Unfortunately, the defense was not allowed to introduce that evidence, and I still think it's more likely than not that an innocent man was convicted.

Most clients of most criminal defense lawyers are guilty, and when they are convicted and the lawyers are asked for comments, they generally give boiler-plate replies like "the jury has spoken and we have to respect their verdict." In this case, both of Bias' lawyers seemed convinced that they were speaking for the rare, wrongly accused innocent man, and I respect that.

But, back to the topic at hand: Don't feel bad about not finding a case where the handloader's data was accepted as evidence. I haven't either. That's the point. I don't want to see anybody else end up where Bias did, and that trap remains open for any handloader who has to fire in self-defense under circumstances where, as is common, gunshot residue becomes a critical determinant of actual distance and whether the shooter is telling the truth or not. Remember, the rules of evidence will be the same in a self-defense shooting as they were in the Bias case.
 
I found a really nice outdoor range but its close to 40 minutes away from my house, I wounder if its worth getting the membership. I wounder if anyone else had this predicament:(
 
Mas has been on several gun forums, providing his experience free of charge, receiving little or no thanks. I, for one, would like to say thank you! His credentials speak volumes.

He has been very consistent in his recommendation to carry factory ammunition in your defensive weapons. He has stated over and over again that it can potentially complicate your defense if you have used reloaded ammunition in defensive shooting.

We're of course free to listen to experienced advice, or ignore it.

Me, I carry factory Winchester or Remington ammunition in my carry weapons.

Thanks again, Mas, for your time and suggestions. For many of us, your words are the extent of our knowledge of the inner workings of a court room, especially in self-defense cases.

-Jim
 
Mas, after I wrote the "two sides to every story" I thought it over and remembered that in a court of law there are three sides to every story. The prosecutions, the defenses and the truth.

The prosecution didn't change their theory entirely, from what I can tell. They claimed murder from start to finish, the only thing that changed was intent. The evidence for motive was never revealed in anything that I could see so it's hard to tell what happened. From what I have read I would take a guess that that was the reason the first murder conviction was overturned, the jury didn't understand the whole charge and felt one murder charge was the same as another. His final conviction was appealed and lost, that means a lot.

I've been reloading for 30+ years and have never seen a load that could kill someone not leave some form of GSR at suicide distances. That was probably the first red flag that went up and that would also explain why the defense tried to attack it. I'm sure there was a whole lot more evidence involved that we weren't priviledged to hear, except maybe the part about him admitting to shooting her and that he was very intoxicated. If the lack of GSR was the only thing that got him convicted, as his attorney told you, it should have been easy for the attorney to introduce reasonable doubt. Since it was a murder trial and the burden of proof is on the state, and all the state had for evidence was that there was no GSR on her hands or body, I doubt it would have even been tried.

Of all your vast files, is there no other case where an unquestionably innocent person was found guilty by the lack of exemplar evidence? How many cases have you had where any party was known to have used handloads and what were the particulars of those cases? It may just be that there are no cases where a court accepted what was in a handloaded round because there was never a case where a handloaded round was questioned. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Bias would have been found guilty even if the firearm were loaded with a factory round, so what he used wasn't a factor and that was why it wasn't that big a deal.

I had a college professor that gave a great talk on scientific theories and how and why some people try to deceive the scientific community. During this talk he said that earthworms came from rocks. To prove it he walked out into his yard and put a rock where there were no earthworms, then several weeks later he lifted the rock and there were several earthworms there. The lesson to be learned was anyone can make a theory, but look at the proof with great scrutiny or you may be fooled.

I understand what you are saying, but so far it's still just a theory.
 
But there are two glaring problems. First, with handloads you don't have the benefit of a factory backing you with experts to testify about ammunition behavior and that leaves the door open for a prosecutor or an attorney in a civil case to portray you as some sort of vigilante cowboy who is acting recklessly and needlessly endangering the public.
Click to expand...

Can't you say the same thing for Magnums, Hollow Points, Police Ammo, FMJ, etc.

Every case I've seen where "reloads" come into play has so many other problems it wouldn't matter what ammo you used. Never heard of a case where reloads alone was a desiding factor.

I think you're best bet is carrying what you practice with. Lets look at it this way, I've carried the same bullet (Lyman 358477, LSWC), in a Model 28 when I was in LE, I now carry the same bullet in my 642 now that I'm retired, I fired 100s of thousands of rounds using that bullet, practice, competition.

I would feel much more comfortable in trying to justify that reloaded bullet then some store bought ammo I fired a few rounds to see what it does, the loaded the defence revolver.

I've been in the game a long time, (in court, LE Firearms Instructor, U_CSI, etc) I have no doubt I wouldn't have any problem in court if it's a ligit shooting.

My contention is, and the recommendation I make is: Shooting, regardless of the game is 90% plus mental. Your head has to be in the game whether its SD, Competition, or just plain practice. If its not you shooting WILL BE AFFECTED. The same thing is involved in Self Defence. Your head has to be in the game. If at the instent you have to worry about "what effect will my ammo have in court" while your making a life or death situation, you got problems. "What Ifs" will get you killed.

If you feel comfortable and justified carrying reloads, do it, if you don't don't.

The problem will come up in civil cases more then criminal, simply because its not illegal to carry and use reloads. But Lawyers like to muddy the waters, its their job, they throw in doubt to the jury ("reasonable doubt" is differant in Criminal & Civil Cases". That muddying of the waters will come up regardless whether you are using Reloads, Hollow points (dumm dumm bulltets) Magnum, FMJs,(remember the movie) or Police ammo, or ammo you carry but don't shoot much because its too expensive.

The answer is like Wyoming, (and other states) where if you car involved in a ligit SD case, you can not be sued in civil court.

If your state does not have such a law, get on the ball and push to get the legislation introduced and passed.
 
Jellybean said:
Mas, after I wrote the "two sides to every story" I thought it over and remembered that in a court of law there are three sides to every story. The prosecutions, the defenses and the truth.

The prosecution didn't change their theory entirely, from what I can tell. They claimed murder from start to finish, the only thing that changed was intent. The evidence for motive was never revealed in anything that I could see so it's hard to tell what happened. From what I have read I would take a guess that that was the reason the first murder conviction was overturned, the jury didn't understand the whole charge and felt one murder charge was the same as another. His final conviction was appealed and lost, that means a lot.

I've been reloading for 30+ years and have never seen a load that could kill someone not leave some form of GSR at suicide distances.
Click to expand...

Jellybean, I totally agree with you on one point, respectfully disagree on some others.

We agree that Bias had no motive to murder his wife. On the other hand, she had a history of attempting suicide and of mental illness.

The reason the single argument of the GSR carried so much weight is that juries have always tended to see forensic evidence as hard science that is more reliable than testimony. With no testing in to show that Bias' loads would not have left GSR at the distance in question, they apparently believed that the crime lab (which tested with much more powerful ammo) had proven him a liar. Bias' loads were so weak that the death bullet barely made it into her brain, not something an experienced shooter/reloader would use on someone he INTENDED to kill.

Between the first trial and the third, the prosecution did in fact make a huge sea change, from a theory of cold-blooded murder to a theory of accidental discharge. You said, "The only thing that changed was intent." Malicious intent is a key ingredient in a murder charge.

Finally, while you may be right in some cases about three stories in the courtroom (the prosecution's, the defense's,and the truth), the fact is that in a huge number of cases, the prosecution DOES have the truth and ends up convicting a guilty person who deserves it. This was one of the rare but real cases, in my opinion, where it was the defendant who was telling the truth...but because his handloads weren't allowed as evidence, couldn't prove it.

On the other hand, I've seen lots of cases where GSR testing of factory ammo proved in court the good guy was telling the truth about the shooting and the bad guy was lying. That's something I want to have on my side, and it's why I use factory ammo for defensive purposes.
 
I use commercial ammo these days for my SD guns so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I did find it interesting that the judge refused to allow the potentially exculpatory testimony on the reloads in the Bias case. In truth, I found it a little scary but consistent with my own observations that -- at least some -- judges don't really like or trust juries and may feel a need to guide them to the "correct" verdict.
 
Serious question for Massad Ayoob: What, in your opinion (and for the courtroom purposes being discussed here) constitutes "factory ammo"? Specifically, what about smaller manufacturers such as MagSafe, Black Hills, etc.?

Do you think that the only (potential) problem is when the shooter HIMSELF loaded the ammo used in the shooting? As long as he got it from some entity that has a federal ammunition manufacturer's license, is this issue off the table?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

kraigwy
What's the deal with 38 spl LSWC
Replies
21
Views
6K
rasmith3442
rasmith3442
E
Sorting Handgun Brass - What Say You?
2
Replies
47
Views
11K
Coaltminer
C
Skip Sackett
CAN you save money by reloading?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
16K
geddylee10002000
G
P
38/44 Ammo Testing – Factory and Reload
Replies
22
Views
8K
Paul5388
Paul5388
Vulcan Bob
.45 Auto Rim & the battle of the bulge.
Replies
18
Views
4K
PhilOhio
P

Latest posts

Back
Top