Interesting inference: “Mr. Rice’s able counsel has failed to produce an expert report or affidavit disputing the testimony of Mr. Finor, the Commonwealth’s firearms identification expert. Given counsel’s sophistication and resourcefulness, it is safe to conclude that no qualified expert would dispute Mr. Finor’s opinion.”
Defendant in this case specifically challenged the use of a 3-D imaging software program in firearms identification process. But since the trial court found and appellate court agreed that “using this 3-D confocal microscopy is just a new tool to utilize the same principles” and that the expert showed a working knowledge of how this technology functioned; it is as admissible as any firearms identification testimony under a more traditional technique – also this new tech was used as a supplement not the supstitution of the traditional methods.
Does not say why the witness was objecting to the expert.
Hearsay ruling