Case (cite)
Cooper v. State, 340 So.2d 91 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)
“Such a predicate was probably sufficient to support the trial court’s ruling, but barely so. In any event, counsel for appellant subjected the witness to a thorough and sifting cross-examination, and by his detailed and descriptive answers, the witness conclusively proved himself to be an expert on the subject of ballistics. Cross-examination is one of the methods available to an appellant as a safeguard ‘against being railroaded by the testimony of a mountebank or charlatan’ as set out in Frazier v. State, 40 Ala.App. 67, 112 So.2d 212 (1958).”