Jules Epstein asks, in a piece on law.com, “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.”
The ruling in U.S. v. Tibbs by Judge Todd E. Edelman, that an expert may not say that a particular firearm was the source, but rather that a particular firearm cannot be excluded, is here.
Epstein notes: “In this day and age, when science seems under attack and is too often dismissed as “fake news”, Judge Edelman’s opinion is a rare victory for science in the courtroom. Defense attorneys should make every effort to ensure that other courts take notice.”
