A landmark Chicago court ruling threatens a century of expert ballistics testimony

[Suck My Glock]

Devil in the grooves: The case against forensic firearms analysis
A landmark Chicago court ruling threatens a century of expert ballistics testimony


https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/devi ... se-against



Last February, Chicago circuit court judge William Hooks made some history. He became the first judge in the country to bar the use of ballistics matching testimony in a criminal trial.

In Illinois v. Rickey Winfield, prosecutors had planned to call a forensic firearms analyst to explain how he was able to match a bullet found at a crime scene to a gun alleged to be in possession of the defendant.

It’s the sort of testimony experts give every day in criminal courts around the country. But this time, attorneys with the Cook County Public Defender’s Office requested a hearing to determine whether there was any scientific foundation for the claim that a specific bullet can be matched to a specific gun. Hooks granted the hearing and, after considering arguments from both sides, he issued his ruling.

It was an earth-shaking opinion, and it could bring big changes to how gun crimes are prosecuted — in Chicago and possibly elsewhere.

Hooks isn’t the first judge to be skeptical of claims made by forensic firearms analysts. Other courts have put restrictions on which terminology analysts use in front of juries. But Hooks is the first to bar such testimony outright. “There are no objective forensic based reasons that firearms identification evidence belongs in any category of forensic science,” Hooks writes. He adds that the wrongful convictions already attributable to the field “should serve as a wake-up call to courts operating as rubber stamps in blindly finding general acceptance” of bullet matching analysis.

[YNOTAZ]

Wow, bottom of the barrel public defenders get ballistic evidence excluded. This threatens millions of Illinois and national cases. Tells you the value of ivy league law degrees.

[smithers599]

Wow, bottom of the barrel public defenders get ballistic evidence excluded. This threatens millions of Illinois and national cases. Tells you the value of ivy league law degrees.

I think the article is saying that prosecutors, not public defenders, will have the ballistic evidence excluded, leading to fewer convictions. Am I misunderstanding?

[Suck My Glock]

What YNOTAZ was commenting on is the fact that public defenders are normally the flunkies from law school who go to work as PDs because that's the last place where someone who barely graduates can get a job. They are not known for being very good at what they do. So for this ground-breaking sort of thing to occur because of flunkies means that the science really was rather weak all along and how dumb was everybody else to not effect this before now?

[YNOTAZ]

Exactly. It's astounding that ultra-high priced, ivy league educated, lawyers have not effectively mounted this same defense over the decades ballistics comparison evidence has been used for convictions.

What makes it even worse, in my opinion, is looking at the fact that the public defenders swayed a judge today, when we have electron microscopes and accurate digital comparison down to the .001 of an inch, while in years past it was a guy sitting at a microscope rolling 2 bullets side-by-side and not being effectively challenged.

[Drmark]

Inter-examiner reliability may be poor, but I bet intra-examiner reliability is high.

Ironic this s*** comes from Chicago!

[DM47]

....

Last February, Chicago circuit court judge William Hooks made some history. He became the first judge in the country to bar the use of ballistics matching testimony in a criminal trial.

....

Go do a quick search on judge William Hooks and some of his history. Unfortunately, you just might not be all that shocked after all.

Soros is sipping champagne again....