Nope, not right.
jpIII, the argument was never that gun modifications would not be used in court. All factors of a firearm used in the commission of a crime certainly may come into use and presented during a court case. The argument was that gun modifications won't negate a person's right to self defense. The continual claim has been that you don't want to use a modified gun or handloaded ammo because that could be used against you, as if somehow such factors therefore make you a premeditated murderer who was just trying to engage in a gunfight or you otherwise would not have a modified gun and/or special handload ammo. Heaven forbid you use your race gun and handloaded race ammo in self defense because it will be said that you have a souped up killing machine with hyperlethal ammo. The implication was that use of such items would somehow cause a self defense case to then go south, resulting in a conviction against the shooter who was acting in self defense. While Ayoob and others have made this claim many times (Ayoobian myth), it has never been shown to be true.
Gun modifications and handloads will not negate the right of self defense.
In this case, we are not even talking about a person who is claiming a right to self defense.
As noted, the gun expert doesn't seem to be much of an expert with the testimony given. The whole issue of a safety and being automatic on the revolver was interesting. I personally have no knowledge of a revolver that can go off by itself WITHOUT the hammer first being cocked in some manner. It does not matter how light the trigger pull is if the hammer isn't cocked on a revolver.
David Butler, a Los Angeles Police Department ballistics expert, testified extensively about the gun, a Smith & Wesson .38-caliber revolver with a two-inch barrel. In summary, he testified that the gun had been altered crudely and that the trigger pull necessary to fire the gun had been drastically reduced. Also, both the locking mechanism of the hammer and the main spring tension screw of the gun had been altered so that the hammer could be released without putting much pressure on the trigger. In addition, the safety mechanism did not function properly.
After conclusion of the testimony at trial, the court granted a defense motion to dismiss the charge of first degree murder. The jury was instructed {Page 5 Cal.App.4th 828} on second degree murder, two theories of voluntary manslaughter (sudden quarrel or heat of passion [CALJIC Nos. 8.42, 8.43 and 8.44] and honest but unreasonable belief in self-defense [CALJIC No. 5.17]), and involuntary manslaughter.
So the initial charge was murder, but first degree murder was discussed and the jury instructed on other charges. Apparently, the gun modification issue was not an issue in the jury's decision. The defendent could be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter because the act was of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion (hence not premeditated) or that she acted in an unreasonable belief of self defense. Both these aspects show intent on behalf of the defendent. Had the trigger issue been salient and believed to have been the reason for the discharge, then it would have been involuntary manslaughter since the gun would have fired unintentionally.
So even here, the gun modification issue was brought out in the court case, but did not figure significantly in the final conviction. The jury apparently did not buy the notion that the gun could have just gone off on its own.
To provide further clarification here, anything relevant to the incident can be brought up in the case, but that does not mean that the information will necessarily determine or figure into the outcome. In the case, it was noted that the dead girl died with $2 in her hand. That aspect had nothing to do with the conviction, nor did her backpack, or the fact that the defendent had trouble extracting the gun from its holster. These are all aspects of the situation just like the gun being crudely and incorrectly modified, but they didn't figure into the conviction.
