United States v. Barnes, 2008 WL 9359653 (S.D.N.Y 2008)

The court held that a hearing is unnecessary to fulfil its gatekeeping obligation. The court notes other courts that have found toolmark identification reliable and states that the NRC report "disclaims any motive to impact the question of ballistics evidence in courts." Further, the court explains that Schwartz's affidavit is unconvincing because she is an academic, not a toolmark examiner, and "while she may be a leader in her academic field, she is not trained or experienced as a firearms examiner and her contentions do not persuade this Court to find that the reliability of firearms identification evidence in general or in this case in particular warrant preclusion or, moreover, a hearing. The court states that if and when the government offers a witness, the court will determine the reliability of the testimony and the defendant is free to challenge the qualifications and methodoloy voir dire.