As I mentioned, I had occasion to speak to a good friend yesterday, and I asked him if we could have a short discussion about the matter of reloads used in a shooting. I passed some of the assertions here past my friend, a state crime lab expert, last night. I won’t go into the entire conversation, but I’ll share a few relevant points.
The matter of ammunition in evidence –
Asserted here and in other discussions is the belief that ammunition in evidence must remain entirely preserved. That is entirely false.
Any recovered bullets, casings, and unexpended ammunition is thoroughly inspected at the lab. Furthermore, as a matter of procedure unexpended ammunition is disassembled to determine its characteristics as precisely as possible. The bullets and powder are examined, weighed and identified, as is the primer. An experienced and trained examiner will have the ability to determine with some certitude the manufacture of origin. In other words, the examiner can determine whether the rounds are loaded at a factory and by which manufacturer, or outside a factory.
Furthermore, if the firearm itself and enough ammunition were recovered, some of it will be fired through that firearm as part of the examination. If there isn’t sufficient ammunition in evidence, the lab will test some that is as similar to the evidence as possible. Most of the cases the lab works the lot number,
or numbers, of the ammunition is simply impossible to determine. But the lab will have identified who made it, place a phone call to the manufacturer, and request some having the same characteristics and using similar components. And when it arrives, even the factory rounds are examined, disassembled and sampled to ensure the lab got what it asked for. If that’s not possible, the labs have reloading equipment. They will replicate,
as close as possible, ammunition identical to the round they disassembled and use those to conduct their firing tests.
So, the notion that an examination of recovered ammunition can only be done through means of observation that completely preserves the evidence is not true.
If the state in any way suspects that hand loaded ammunition was used, a search warrant will include the seizure of the suspect’s components, loading equipment and loading data. I believe his quote was, “Ken, if you’re ever the subject of the attention of the state in a homicide, we can turn your entire life inside out. After the search warrant is executed you’ll be lucky to have carpet left in your house.” I asked him specifically if he’d ever worked a case where the crime lab used a hand loader’s data book to develop test ammunition. “Of course,” was his reply.
The matter of Gun Shot Residue –
Asserted here are many false notions of GSR examinations, most commonly repeated is the notion that GSR testing without independent factory exemplar data is not admissible as evidence in court. That is entirely false. We discussed this at length. I’ll leave you with this.
Quite often the crime lab works a case with evidence that contains GSR, but no gun or ammunition was recovered. Now according to some, without a gun and the ammunition the evidence is rather meaningless. Far from it. Much can be determined from that evidence alone. We discussed just how much information can be gathered, “But rather than take my word for it, Ken,” he says, “go to the Kentucky State Police Forensic Lab’s website and look for yourself.”
So I did. You can, too.
http://www.firearmsid.com/A_labsys.htm
When a pattern of gunshot residues is found on a submitted article of clothing and the questioned firearm and ammunition are known, firearm examiners will try to bracket the muzzle-to-garment test results within a minimum and a maximum distance. Results may read something like:
Exhibit 1 (victim's shirt) was examined and a pattered deposit of gunshot residues was found around a bullet entrance hole located in the shirt's left shoulder. Exhibit 2 (firearm) was found to produce similar deposits of gunshot residues when fired at a target from a minimum distance of 6 inches out to a maximum distance of 18 inches.
Bracketing the muzzle-to-garment distance within a minimum and maximum distance is being pretty specific. To get a report back saying something like that listed above the exact firearm and ammunition used in the case must be known and there must be a
significant pattern of nitrite residues on the garment.
So we see here that in order to get a precise distance, precise meaning within a foot at close distance, having the exact gun and ammunition isn’t enough. The GSR evidence itself has got to be both well-defined and well-preserved on the garment. Neither of those factors is within the shooter’s control. One is a result of pure luck. The other is subject to any number of factors such as handling by first responders and even the weather.
This module in particular addresses determining distance using only the evidence with GSR -
http://www.firearmsid.com/A_distanceResults.htm
When a firearm is not recovered there still may be certain general conclusions that can be reached when gunshot residues are found on the evidence garment.
Contact or Near Contact Gunshot
Probably the easiest conclusion to report would be one involving a contact or near contact gunshot. The results may read something like:
Exhibit 1 (shirt) was found to have a bullet entrance hole in the chest area that displays physical effects and gunshot residues consistent with a contact or near contact gunshot.
A contact or near contact gunshot will normally deposit a very intense ring of residue right around the margins of the bullet hole. A close range gunshot, like the one seen above, will typically be in the near contact to approximately 12-inch range of fire.
Close Range Gunshot
Another conclusion that is fairly easy to reach involves what can be call a close range gunshot. The results may read something like:
Exhibit 1 (shirt) was found to have a bullet entrance hole in the chest area. A heavy deposit of gunshot residues were found around this hole that are consistent with those that would be deposited by a close range gunshot.
Close range gunshots will usually leave a very concentrated deposit of residue around the bullet entrance hole that is visible to the eye.
A close range gunshot, like the one seen above, will typically be in the near contact to approximately 12-inch range of fire.
Intermediate Range Gunshot
An intermediate range gunshot usually will deposit a significant amount of particulate residue that is not easily seen with the eye but can be detected through a microscopic examination and through chemical testing. The results may read something like:
Exhibit 1 (shirt) was found to have a bullet entrance hole in the chest area. A deposit of gunshot residues were found around this hole that are consistent with those that would be deposited by an intermediate range gunshot.
An intermediate range gunshot, like that seen in the above image, can range from just beyond the 12-inch range out to 24 to 36 inches. This depends greatly upon the caliber, barrel length and powder type used in the ammunition.
So GSR evidence – or the lack of it – will become part of the discovery and admitted into evidence whether you used hand loaded ammunition or not. Furthermore, quite a bit of information will be gleaned regarding the distance the shot was taken, even if the gun and ammunition used is
completely unknown. If your case and proving your innocence hinges upon knowing the distance down to matters of inches, you’ve got a big hurdle to overcome.
The matter of submitting evidence produced by the Defendant –
As I have already presented, part of the examination will include disassembling the ammunition in evidence. It may include firing some of those rounds in evidence. Even the National Institutes of Justice (NIJ) agrees this is within the scope of a proper investigation of evidence. The NIJ has a complete, and quite thorough, program that they’ve published on-line used as a training tool for Firearms Examiners. In Module 9 it mentions the use of evidence ammunition in testing.
http://www.nij.gov/training/firearms-training/module12/fir_m12_t06_08.htm
To reproduce results, the suspect firearm must be available. The size and density of residue patterns vary based on a combination of factors that may include the firearm, ammunition, barrel length, caliber, powder type, and powder charge. When residue patterns are reproduced in a shooting case, it is essential that the firearm and ammunition used in known-distance testing be as similar as possible to that used in the case.
Sources of testing ammunition may include
- evidence ammunition from the case, per laboratory protocol,
- purchased ammunition (same brand, stock number, with the same powder, projectile and primer components),
- reference ammunition (same brand, stock number, with the same powder, projectile, and primer components).
Note: Examiners should always be aware that reference collections/database programs are seldom all inclusive; all available resources and examiners should be consulted.
If hand loaded ammunition was used, in order to replicate ammunition as similar as possible to the evidence, the lab may load it and use it for testing. The conversation I had last night discussed a case where a man used a round of .45 ACP ammunition dating back to the 1940’s. The lab simply could not find ammunition from that time period to use in testing. So the technician identified the components and loaded some that were as similar as possible to the ammunition and used it for testing.
Fiddletown, you seem to be under the impression that taking a Sharpie to your box of factory ammunition will be sufficient to substantiate to the examiner that this was the ammunition used in the incident. I’m not sure how you come to reconcile that this piece of “defendant-manufactured” evidence is of unimpeachable value, but loading data is not.
A competent Firearms Examiner will not take your half-empty box and merely assume since the evidence ammunition looks similar to the ammunition in your box no further examination is necessary. “I’d be derelict and negligent in my duty if I did not perform a thorough examination of the evidence ammunition,” was his comment to me. “A factory box is nice to have, because I can make my determination quicker. But I could do the same with a reloader’s box of ammunition, or his data. A competent examiner assumes nothing.”
“Remarks like this show ignorance and inexperience, both of how a Forensics Lab works and trial proceedings in general, and you don’t want them making your defense.” He made some other commentary that really isn’t High-Road material, and has little additional value here. But after roughly an hour’s conversation on the matter he reminded me of one thing –
“Ken, there is only one Finder of Fact. It’s not the ammunition factory. It’s not the Forensic Lab, or anyone else involved in the case. The only Finder of Fact is the jury. And they get to chose who they believe. They get to chose how much weight they want to give to each expert witness. Or even if they want to give it any at all. You can present all the expert testimony you want, and it can be clear and convincing in its findings, but the jury retains the right to discard all of it if they want.”
The assertion that you need to use factory ammo to ensure you’ll be safe from a difficult trial is nothing more than a fantasy floated about by speculative masters. The sword cuts both ways. If the GSR that studies say
should be there from factory ammunition isn’t, or is inconsistent with the facts as you assert them, all you’ve done is trade one set of problems for another. Sure they can be explained, but once again, the jury gets to decide who to believe.
If you are involved in an incident where you used hand loaded ammunition, and your defense team says they can’t get this sort of ballistics evidence submitted into testimony, retain yourself another.
