“The Court finds that the limitations mentioned above and prescribed by the Department of Justice are reasonable, and that the Government’s experts should abide by those limitations. See Doc. No. *1262 81–11, p. 3. To that end, the Governments experts:
[S]hall not [1] assert that two toolmarks originated from the same source to the exclusion of all other sources…. [2] assert that examinations conducted in the forensic firearms/toolmarks discipline are infallible or have a zero error rate…. [3] provide a conclusion that includes a statistic or numerical degree of probability except when based on relevant and appropriate data…. [4] cite the number of examinations conducted in the forensic firearms/toolmarks discipline performed in his or her career as a direct measure for the accuracy of a proffered conclusion….. [5] use the expressions ‘reasonable degree of scientific certainty,’ ‘reasonable scientific certainty,’ or similar assertions of reasonable certainty in either reports or testimony unless required to do so by [the Court] or applicable law.
Id. As to the fifth limitation described above, the Court will permit the Government’s experts to testify that their conclusions were reached to a reasonable degree of ballistic certainty, a reasonable degree of certainty in the field of firearm toolmark identification, or any other version of that standard.”