People v. Givens, 912 N.Y.S.2d 855 (Sup Ct. Bx. Slip. Op. 2010)

Defendant argued that firearms and toolmark identification testimony should be excluded because it "is no longer gnerally accepted in the relevant scientific and legal communities.""The Court undertook an exhaustive review of the relevant case law as well as empirical data and concluded that while ballistics examinations may lack the rigor of science and may suffer from greater uncertainty than other kinds of forensic evidence, the methodology has garnered sufficient empirical support to warrant admissibility. This Court was unable to find any cases where firearms and toolmark identification was found to be unreliable or no longer scientifically acceptable. Nor were there instances where the testimony was ruled to be inadmissible. While concerns have been expressed regarding the scientific methodology of firearms and toolmark identification, when faced with the issue, Courts, such as in Willock, have typically allowed the testimony noting that the defense may certainly challenge any expert testimony through cross-examination and/ or by offering defense experts to challenge the findings of the People's expert witness."