Skip to content

United States v. Adams, 444 F. Supp. 3d 1248 (Ore. 2020)

Case (cite)
United States v. Adams, 444 F. Supp. 3d 1248 (Ore. 2020)
Year
2020
State
Oregon
Type of proceeding
Trial
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Correct to Admit
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Travis D. Gover
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant filed a Motion in Limine in response to the Government's proffer of Mr. Gover as expert witness, who used the AFTE methodology to conclude that the Taurus was an operable firearm and that the shell casings at the scene had been fired by the Taurus.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Daubert; Rule 702
Did lower court hold a hearing
N
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Travis D. Gover
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
None
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or PCAST report (PCAST)
NAS2009, PCAST
Discussion of error rates / reliability
Y
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
Y
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
Mr. Gover's expert testimony is limited to the following observational evidence: (1) the Taurus pistol recovered in the crawlspace of Mr. Adams's home is a 40 [**43] caliber, semi-automatic pistol with a hemispheric-tipped firing pin, barrel with six lands/grooves and right twist; (2) that the casings test fired from the Taurus showed 40 caliber, hemispheric firing pin impression; (3) the casings seized from outside the shooting scene were 40 caliber, with hemispheric firing pin impressions; and (4) the bullet recovered from gold Oldsmobile at the scene of the shooting were 40/10mm caliber, with six lands/groves and a right twist.No evidence relating to Mr. Gover's methodology or conclusions relating to whether the shell casings matched the Taurus will be admitted at trial.
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
(1), (2), (3), (4), (5)
Ruling on qualifications of expert
N
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
N
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
N
Ruling on 702(c) – the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes

Excellent and in-depth discussion of each Daubert factor for the AFTE methodology.