Does science support a firearms and tool mark expert from saying anything more than that “the firearm may have fired the recovered casing … ? Not, “it came from this gun and no other,” or “casings from the crime scene and from test fires of the suspect’s gun match,” but a much more calibrated and restricted conclusion, evidence that is probative but not determinative.

According to a September 2019 ruling, the “may” finding is the limit. “The government’s expert may testify that based on his examination, the recovered firearm cannot be excluded as the source of the cartridge casing found on the scene of the alleged shooting,“ see United States v. Tibbs, 2019 D.C. Super. LEXIS 9, *80.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]