I know your not supposed to but does anyone handload their carry ammo.

[pintler]

But if by chance your trial depends on gunshot residue to prove beyond doubt your side of the story, or the lack of it, your handload data cannot be used in court since it wasn't factory.

I would appreciate a flame free explanation of the reasoning here.

Case 1: Fred is in a shooting, GSR matters, Fred fired 3 of 8 in the gun; you'd think you could test the remaining 5 in the gun and the 7 in Fred's spare mag. I read the post linked above where someone said they couldn't test those because 'they were in the custody of the court'. People manage to test evidence all the time - DNA, rifling marks, etc. Why is ammo different?

Case 2: Fred is in a shooting, GSR matters, Fred fired 5 of 5 and wasn't carrying spares. He says 'It was factory ammo from the box in my closet'. You can test that ammo, apparently.

Case 3: Same as #2 but Fred says 'one of a batch of 500 reloads, there are 5 boxes of 50 left, these came from the partially used box in my closet'. Why is the evidence from case 2 admissible but not in case 3? Either way, you're taking Fred's word for what box the ammo came from.

Or is the argument that Fred says 'never mind what box they came from, these are Winchester White Box 125 gr' and the lab buys their own box? How is that more reliable? Fred, for example, could have used Winchester components to load super hot (or powder puff) reloads; if you're not willing to believe him about rounds coming from the half used box of reloads in his closet, why should you believe he is using factory loads at all?

 

[357 Terms]

kLEANBORE

--based on established legal principles and upon standard, accepted criminal investigative techniques. It's very, very basic law stuff.

Yet applying it to a known SD shooting with handloads is Speculative. If you can't show it has happened how can you say it will?

Take a look around you. Are you confident that if you do have to shoot, you will have an abundance of evidence and favorable testimony to ensure your prosperous future?

That could be applied to sooo many factors that it gets my head spinning, not just handloads!
Maybe I shouldn't shoot unless there is a survielance camera on me.
I shouldn't use 10mm.
I shouldn't use a laser.
I better not get a trigger job on my carry gun.
I better not have a SA trigger on my carry gun(hair trigger)
and on andon andon.......

 

[jerkface11]

Let's see 0 people have been convicted for this. How many factory rounds have you guys had not go off? How many have you had lock your gun up? I had a box of winchester .44 special with 3 or 4 pieces of brass with no flashholes. Each of them locked the revolver up and required several minutes of work to free it up again. Bad factory ammo is far more likely than handloads turning a good shoot into a murder conviction.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 357 Terms: Yet applying it to a known SD shooting with handloads is Speculative. If you can't show it has happened how can you say it will?

Your attorney will understand that if an appellate court ruling has established something about the admissibility of hearsay in an accounting fraud case, the same rule will apply in a murder trial.

Your criminal defense attorney, or whomever he or she would consult for a case involving the subject, already understands that if your state has adopted the Daubert rule for criminal trials, that a SCOTUS ruling on the admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence that had to do with a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company will apply in a case involving murder by poison, a case including touch DNA samples to prove the presence of someone at a particular location in a trial about anything under the sun, a case involving the testing of ammunition, or a number of other seemingly unrelated kinds of cases, including even a case involving fraud in computer-generated financial records.

Your criminal defense attorney already understands that the principles of admissibility and interpretation of gunshot residue traces, once established in a case involving manslaughter, will apply in cases involving premeditated murder, suicide, accidental death, or self defense.

You do not have to have a result in a self defense case to establish what can and what cannot be used in a self defense case, or to predict with confidence how it will be used--and the same thing applies to any other kind of civil or criminal case.

I hope this helps.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by pintler: I would appreciate a flame free explanation of the reasoning here....

Case 1: Fred is in a shooting, GSR matters, ... People manage to test evidence all the time - DNA, rifling marks, etc. Why is ammo different?

Case 2: ...

Case 3: Same as #2 but Fred says 'one of a batch of 500 reloads, there are 5 boxes of 50 left, these came from the partially used box in my closet'. Why is the evidence from case 2 admissible but not in case 3? Either way, you're taking Fred's word for what box the ammo came from....

Or is the argument that Fred says 'never mind what box they came from, these are Winchester White Box 125 gr' and the lab buys their own box? How is that more reliable? Fred, for example, could have used Winchester components to load super hot (or powder puff) reloads; if you're not willing to believe him about rounds coming from the half used box of reloads in his closet, why should you believe he is using factory loads at all?

These are good questions, and they are too complicated and involve too many variables to give them the answers that they deserve.

I'll throw out a couple of factors that may help:

• Whether a fired case had been a factory load, a handload in virgin brass, or a reload can be verified.
• The kind of priming and propellant used can be verified.
• Ammunition is really no different from anything else when it comes to the admissibility of evidence. The same rules apply.

To really discuss those specific hypothetical cases in any depth, one would have to talk to someone in a major crime lab or to another expert in forensic evidence with experience in firearms.

For those who may not know it, Massad Ayoob, though not an attorney, served at one time as Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).

 

[Frank Ettin]

It appears that there's nothing new under the sun. All the usual points have been brought up, and everything touched on here has already been more thoroughly discussed in the threads I linked to in post 12.

And of course Kleanbore and a few others get it. And the usual gang doesn't.

How exactly would they know its handloaded ammo anyway?

Do you really think that the Firearms and Toolmark Examiner who examines the spent case(s) and remaining ammunition, and especially when he compares it with the reloading equipment and supplies found at your home, won't be able to figure it out? Things like tool marks and powder residue will be different from factory ammunition.

How can they prove that YOU loaded it? Maybe you bought it at a gun show or got it in a trade.

First, they probably would based on comparisons with reloading tools, components and finished ammunition found at your home. But in any case, if the issue is GSR test results, it doesn't matter if you loaded it. It only matters that it's not commercially manufactured and without suitable exemplars for your testing.

...I do understand what you are saying about admissibility, just show me precedent, in a self defense case!...

No actually, you don't.

You seem to suppose that the rules of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert opinion testimony based on scientific tests are different in a self defense case compared with other types of cases. Care to explain to us how they are different?

What do you really know about the law of evidence? What do you really know about the law?

...There is precedent of a man being prosecuted for using a 10mm in a SD shoot(Fish)...

That of course is nonsense and demonstrates how limited and shallow your understanding of these sorts of things is. Fish had a number of problems, probably the most significant of which was that he did not know that his assailant was armed. It was thus a disparity of force case, which can be a very difficult type of self defense case to make. (And of course there's no way to be sure that if you have to use your gun in self defense, your case won't also be a disparity of force case.)

But we do know from a post verdict interview with a juror in the Fish case that his use of JHP ammunition had a negative effect on the jury. And that reinforces what we understand about the need to be able to deal with such issues at trial.

It may be worthwhile to use JHP (and major caliber) ammunition, because doing so increases one's chances for a good outcome on the street. And cases like Fish then show the need to be able to deal with the potential problems down the road.

If you think handloads give you that much of an edge, have at it. I don't.

...Are you suggesting that a pereson in the act of saving their own life or a loved one has had GSR evidence used against them in a case involving handloads...

I can show you a case in which GSR test results actually resulted in someone winning his self defense trial.

In about 1990, police Corporal Randy Willems of he Davenport, Iowa PD was able to successfully show he shot his accuser in self defense, and thus win acquittal, because he used factory ammunition and was able to introduce into evidence expert opinion based on GSR testing that supported his story. Here's what Massad Ayoob said about that case, as quoted by Bartholomew Roberts in this post on TFL (emphasis added):

....Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems

A man attempted to disarm and murder Corporal Randy Willems of the Davenport, IA Police Department, screaming “Give me your (expletive deleted) gun, I’ll blow your (expletive deleted) brains out.” Willems shot him during the third disarming attempt, dropping him instantly with one hit to the abdomen from a department issue factory round, Fiocchi 9mm 115 grain JHP +P+. The subject survived and stated that the officer had shot him for nothing from a substantial distance away. GSR testing showed conclusively that the subject’s torso was approximately 18” from the muzzle of the issue Beretta 92 when it discharged. Randy was acquitted of criminal charges in the shooting at trial in 1990. Two years later, Randy and his department won the civil suit filed against them by the man who was shot.

I use this case when discussing handloads because it is a classic example of how the replicability of factory ammunition, in the forensic evidence sense, can annihilate false allegations by the “bad guy” against the “good guy” who shot him. The records of State of Iowa v. Corporal Randy Willems are archived in the Iowa District Court in Scott County, Davenport, Iowa. Those from the civil suit, Karwoski v. Willems and the City of Davenport, should be at the Iowa Civil Court of Scott County, also located in Davenport, Iowa....

This decisive exculpatory evidence would not have been available if handloads had been used.

And this sort of thing does come up as Marty Hates tells us in this post on this board:

I'll jump in here, although I expect my words to fall on deaf ears. I am scheduled to testify at a 1st degree assault trial in April, and pursuant to that testimony, I must conduct testing with a Glock 19 and Silvertip ammunition. It is critical for the defense to show the distance from the shooter to the shootee, and that should be done with a reasonable degree of acuracy BECAUSE I CAN USE THE SAME GUN/AMMO COMBO as the shooter/defendant. If he hadn't been using Silvertips, my testimony would be more open to being discredited, (as the DA tried to do in the first trial). This is a re-trial, due to a hung jury on the first one.

But, while I won't use handloads for self-defense, I certainly don't mind if you do. At $150 per hour of expert witness time, I like the idea that much more testing or work would have to be done to accomplish what might need to be accomplish. And, at private attorney rates of $250 er hour, how much more time will your attorney have to spend trying to explain to the jury why your use of handloads shouldn't be a factor?

For one hour of attorney time, you can use factory loads for the rest of your life....

...I would appreciate a flame free explanation of the reasoning here...

Well a complete discussion of how the rules of evidence work with regard to the admissibility of expert opinion testimony based on scientific testing is set out in this post:

....Say you may want to introduce GSR evidence to corroborate your story about how the event took place.

You therefore engage an expert to conduct tests reproducing the circumstances of the event. You want the test results to validate your story of how things took place. If you're claiming self defense, you're hoping that your expert witness can take ammunition which can be established to be substantially identical to the ammunition you shot the alleged attacker with under conditions replicating the shooting as you have contended it took place and produce GSR similar to the GSR produced at the scene. And that will, you hope, allow your expert to testify that in his opinion the shooting took place as you had described it.

That can only work, and you can get the sort of expert testimony you need in your defense, if the judge can be satisfied that the ammunition tested by your expert was substantially identical to the ammunition with which you shot the guy you claim attacked you.

If you used handloads, the only evidence you can offer to support the claim that the ammunition tested was substantially identical to the ammunition used in the claimed self defense event will be your testimony to that effect. Your testimony on that point would be suspect because you are vitally interested in the outcome and there can be no independent corroboration of your claim as to what was in the ammunition you used to defend yourself with.

On the other hand, if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, the you could show that Federal Cartridge Company manufactures large quantities subject to certain quality controls to a certain degree of uniformity. In addition, Federal Cartridge Company is a non-involved third party making ammunition for sale to the general public. That would most likely establish an adequate foundation to secure admission into evidence of GSR test results of exemplar Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto ammunition in support of your expert's opinion.

It's all about being able to perform a test under conditions that a judge can be convinced mirror the event sufficiently to permit an expert to draw valid conclusions about the event from the test results....

...Or is the argument that Fred says 'never mind what box they came from, these are Winchester White Box 125 gr' and the lab buys their own box? How is that more reliable? Fred, for example, could have used Winchester components to load super hot (or powder puff) reloads; if you're not willing to believe him about rounds coming from the half used box of reloads in his closet, why should you believe he is using factory loads at all?...

Because, as I wrote in the post quoted above (and quoted again, below, with some emphasis added), with factory ammunition it's not just a matter of taking Fred's words.

...if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, ...

...That could be applied to sooo many factors that it gets my head spinning, not just handloads!
Maybe I shouldn't shoot unless there is a survielance camera on me.
I shouldn't use 10mm.
I shouldn't use a laser.
I better not get a trigger job on my carry gun.
I better not have a SA trigger on my carry gun(hair trigger)
and on andon andon.......

Of course it applies to a great many factors. So what?

The point of the exercise is first to understand all those factors and how they could cause you trouble. Then you can (1) decide if whatever benefit you gain from each factor is worth the possible trouble; and (2) for each factor you decide is worth the possible trouble, prepare and plan to deal with the possible trouble. That is called "risk management."

...you can choose to let the sea lawyers run your life if you want to.....

I choose not to!

Good for you. The legal profession is grateful for your attitude.

Many of my colleagues have made a lot of their money getting people out of trouble that could have been avoided, at far less expense, by consulting a lawyer before hand.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 357 Terms: That [concern about evidence] could be applied to sooo many factors that it gets my head spinning, not just handloads!
Maybe I shouldn't shoot unless there is a survielance camera on me.
I shouldn't use 10mm.
I shouldn't use a laser.
I better not get a trigger job on my carry gun.
I better not have a SA trigger on my carry gun(hair trigger)
and on andon andon.......

Off topic, but hair triggers cause difficulty in court, particularly if a plaintiff in a civil preceding is trying to convince a jury that a shooting was not intentional in order to get an insurance settlement. Some prosecutor may make noise about 10MM or .44 Magnum or a gun named "Devastator".

The thing to keep in mind is that if the potential consequences of a risk are severe, and if the risk can be readily mitigated in advance, it is a prudent thing to do so.

And that does apply to the topic at hand.

 

[pintler]

..if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, ...

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand the reasoning. Especially if, e.g., there are 3 unfired rounds in the gun, 7 in the spare mag, and boxes at home, what's the argument that they don't match the ones fired? That Fred planned ahead and loaded so that the first 4 rounds are super dooper (or powder puff) rounds and then loaded different rounds to lay a false trail?

IANAL (I'm here to learn). I would think a prosecutor could argue that Fred did so, but arguing that possibility doesn't seem so compelling that Fred couldn't argue he didn't. It seems like precisely the kind of thing where both sides would present their evidence and the jury would decide which version was more credible.

For example, a prosecution expert might testify that the blood spatter means this. The defense expert argues it means something else. But, IIUC, you don't exclude the evidence just because it isn't 100% conclusive. Why is GSR evidence different?

 

[Owen Sparks]

I carry factory ammo most of the time. One exception is when I leave the "range" which is really just a dirt pit near the house where I shoot. There have been several cases of people being robbed of their guns while out shooting alone and I always make a point to save enough rounds that I walk back to the car with a fully loaded magazine just in case. I can't see any potential for legal trouble if you used handloads in self-defense during target practice or on the way home from target practice.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by pintler: Forgive me, I'm trying to understand the reasoning. Especially if, e.g., there are 3 unfired rounds in the gun, 7 in the spare mag, and boxes at home, what's the argument that they don't match the ones fired? That Fred planned ahead and loaded so that the first 4 rounds are super dooper (or powder puff) rounds and then loaded different rounds to lay a false trail?

Readily determinable by microscopic and chemical evaluation.

But, IIUC, you don't exclude the evidence just because it isn't 100% conclusive. Why is GSR evidence different?

The courts do not leave it to juries to decide if an expert witness is really an expert,, nor do they let lay persons evaluate whether certain highly technical evidence is credible. The courts have established certain criteria that govern the admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence.

Ammunition is not different--many things fall under the rules.

Test results from today's factory ammunition will be ruled admissible, but results from testing loads created with less than rigorous independent record keeping and without certified quality processes will not.

Same thing applies to paint, drugs, foodstuffs, computer-generated reports, documents, you name it.

 

[357 Terms]

fiddletown

What do you really know about the law of evidence? What do you really know about the law?

Right, right

I know that you cant tell me a single case in which a SD shooting involving handloads caused any problems for a single person.
All you have mentioned are six drunks in Idaho...thanks

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Forgive me, I'm trying to understand the reasoning. Especially if, e.g., there are 3 unfired rounds in the gun, 7 in the spare mag, and boxes at home, what's the argument that they don't match the ones fired? That Fred planned ahead and loaded so that the first 4 rounds are super dooper (or powder puff) rounds and then loaded different rounds to lay a false trail?...

The issue is that it can't be established that they match the fired one. With handloads, the only authentication is Fred. With commercial ammunition, the manufacturer is an uninvolved third party. In addition, a manufacturer uses testing protocols and written quality control procedures to assure that the ammunition meets published specifications.

Those factors will support my claim that the tested exemplars duplicate the round(s) fired in the incident -- if my client used commercial ammunition.

...I would think a prosecutor could argue that Fred did so, but arguing that possibility doesn't seem so compelling that Fred couldn't argue he didn't....

But under the rules of evidence, if I, the defense, want to admit into evidence expert opinion testimony based on scientific test results, it is my burden to lay an adequate foundation and convince the judge that the testing meets a certain threshold of validity and sufficient duplicates the event that is the subject matter of the trial to be relevant.

...It seems like precisely the kind of thing where both sides would present their evidence and the jury would decide which version was more credible...

But certain types of evidence must first meet a threshold test of relevance and/or validity. Scientific test results are one such type.

...For example, a prosecution expert might testify that the blood spatter means this. The defense expert argues it means something else. But, IIUC, you don't exclude the evidence just because it isn't 100% conclusive. Why is GSR evidence different?...

As you posed your hypothetical, both experts are looking at the same blood splatters at the scene. It's not a question as to whether someones tests duplicate the circumstances of the event. (But of course, each side will still have to qualify its expert.)

And if your expert wants to do some test splatters and testify regarding those, you will have to first establish a proper nexus between the event and the test.

 

[chhodge69]

Reading these cases makes me think that instead of a light or a laser you should mount a camera.

 

[pintler]

Fiddletown, Kleanbore, thanks, I kinda sorta get it .

 

[Frank Ettin]

What do you really know about the law of evidence? What do you really know about the law?

Right, right

I know that you cant tell me a single case in which a SD shooting involving handloads caused any problems for a single person.
All you have mentioned are six drunks in Idaho...thanks

And thus we know that your opinion is that of a person who knows nothing of the subject matter.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I guess I should not carry a .45 anymore because the prosecution is likely to point out that even the US Military in combat only carries 9mm loaded with FMJ ammo.

 

[357 Terms]

Reading these cases makes me think that instead of a light or a laser you should mount a camera.
__________________

LOL, the" Lawyer-cam"

And just before you have to shoot in a SD situation yell out the disclaimer "A 125 GRAIN HOLLOW POINT LOADED WITH 5.7 GRAINS OF UNIQUE!!!!!!!"

 

[357 Terms]

And thus we know that your opinion is that of a person who knows nothing of the subject matter.

ahhh yes fiddletown; you are all knowing and wise, I am a meager bluecollar.

 

[P5 Guy]

Handloads

In 38/357 and 44SPL in carry revolvers are all handloads. That is the only ammo they get. 9mm I do handload, but just started that round so there is no SD ammo made up for them, yet. 500 ZERO 124JHPs on order.
I asked this before when the question was brought up, if one uses all one manufacturers pieces and assembles the ammo ones self, having the only part a commercially available powder that varies from the factory's recipe, how could the lab tell? Saying all Hornady, or Winchester, or Speer components. Would they spend that much time, money and effort? Outside of the anti-gun states.

Handloads are pretty well exclusive in the long guns too. Not 7.62x39 and 12 gauge.

 

[MMCSRET]

I don't know what color collar anyone is and it doesn't matter. I carry my hand loads; in town and in grizzly territory. I must have confidence that the ammunition will work. Otherwise why not rent a gun and ammunition when you feel the need for protection. Could work like a car rental, purchase the insurance or not; your choice!!!!!!!

 

[CMC]

I dont understand all the legal mumbo jumbo and the physics do not support why a handload is better or worst that a factory load.
Are lawyers that irrational?
A good shoot in self defense is a legal shoot and the p\projectile and its speed has no legal effect on the outcome or should not have any effect IMHO.

Now there was a time in this country that all ammo was handloaded, I wonder if lawyers back then where not as smart as the ones today or is it the other way around.


A bad shoot is a bad shoot whether you use handloads or factory ammo.


So you shoot somebody in self defense and it is justified and then a two legged snake wants to sue you or make the case it was not a legal shoot , that is like saying guns kill people.

This is such a silly argument IMHO.
With respect to the ignorant and prejudicial young state attorneys opinion mentioned in one of the post above that it would make it worst IMHO he should be fired and banned as a lawyer.

I thought the district attorneys duty was to find the truth to serve justice not use his opinions to serve his delirium of grandeur.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Reading these cases makes me think that instead of a light or a laser you should mount a camera.

But remember Gerald Ung (see post 24). He was attacked by multiple assailants, and the attack was captured on video. Nonetheless, he was tried (and acquitted)

I guess I should not carry a .45 anymore because the prosecution is likely to point out that even the US Military in combat only carries 9mm loaded with FMJ ammo.

Now I know you're smarter than that.

ahhh yes fiddletown; you are all knowing and wise, I am a meager bluecollar.

I never claimed to be all knowing and wise, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were things you knew about that I didn't.

However, I do know something about the law, and it's how I earned my living and supported my family for more than 30 years.

 

[Loosedhorse]

fiddletown...

Thank you, especially for that monumental post 81. It gives the interested the best chance of seeing what you mean, and making an informed choice--what else can be done?

It was said above that someone didn't want the lawyers "running my life," and that is a valid choice. Personally, I don't want the lawyers ruining my life--especially if my actions will determine their ability to do that--and that's my choice.

The only gun I own that I would be tempted to handload SD rounds for is my .41 Mag. With full power loads, it's not a great SD gun, IMHO...but with .41 "Special"-level ammo, it would be. (Such ammo was available when the caliber was introduced, but not anymore). But I don't think it's worth the risk to reload "ideal" SD ammo for it, gven my other available SD choices.

I do (frequently, not exclusively) carry a 10, so I will not be able to use the "I carry the same ammo the police do" explanation. That's a problem, which I am willing to tackle by having a clear, articulable set of reasons why I choose that caliber (and my favored factory loading).

Is that as safe as just carrying the local PD's .40? No. But I believe I have good reason, and I believe I can communicate that.

You don't have to do EVERYTHING that would be legally ideal, but you should know where your variances are, and whether you have good reason for them--good enough to balance the downside.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Do you really think that the Firearms and Toolmark Examiner who examines the spent case(s) and remaining ammunition, and especially when he compares it with the reloading equipment and supplies found at your home, won't be able to figure it out? Things like tool marks and powder residue will be different from factory ammunition.

Why would they be in your home? Most shootings that are legal the shooter doesn't even see the inside of the court house let alone a search warrent.

 

[liberty -r- death]

Yep I do to. Why not get the best load for the weapon. Not all factory loads are equal to home loads.