Case (cite)
United States v. Green, 405 F.Supp.2d 104 (D. Mass. 2005) [comprehensive review]
“I reluctantly come to the . . . conclusion [that firearm toolmark evidence is admissble] because of my confidence that any other decision will be rejected by appellate courts . . . [but] the more courts admit this type of toolmark evidence without requiring documentation, proficientcy testing, or evidence of reliability, the more sloppy practice will endure; we should require more.”
refer to this case for detailed description on the subjective nature of the analysis
The expert testified that there have been no controlled studies to evaluate the error rate of the field.
on error rate: “even if his approach may be flawed, if examiners in the field manage to overcome these flaws, or if this examiner had a low error rate, the evidence may still be reliable, and the jury can evaluate it. Without information about error rates, the initial factfinder, this Court, and the ultimate one, the jury, have no accurate way of evaluting the testimony.”
“Even without testimony about error rate, proficiency testing, and certification . . . If the jury is able to see and understand what the expert saw, then the testimony may be admissible.”
this court comments that “the reliance on long-standing use of ballistics evidence in the courts is troubling.”