Rice v. Gavin, 2016 WL 3009392 (E.D. Pa. 2016)

Defendant argues that his due process rights were violated because the NAS2009 report has led to a new understanding of firearms identification after his 1997 trial showing that the expert testimony admitted at his trial unreliable. The lower court did not address the due process claim so it is reviewed de novo. The court holds that defendant did not set forth evidence establishing a due process violation because the NAS report is not "a wholesale repudiation" of ballistics/firearms identification of the kind of used in the trial. The court states that even if the expert testimony overstates conclusions under today's standards, defendant has failed to show how that undermined the fairness of the trial. The court notes that the Supreme Court has considered a case using NAS2009 and the Court did not find that ballistics as a whole was unreliable. The defense cross-examined the expert and other testified that defendant was the shooter.