Even the government is not arguing on appeal that \u201cscientific certainty\u201d is a proper characterization for toolmark identification expert testimony. While there may be some deficiency in the objections to the standard testified to by Paul, it appears that the \u201cscientific certainty\u201d issue was brought to the district court’s attention before and during Paul’s testimony. A more thorough Daubert hearing could have been helpful in handling the \u201cscientific certainty\u201d issue. The issue is then whether the \u201cscientific certainty\u201d characterization was harmless error.
\n48 An error is harmless unless it results in actual prejudice, which is demonstrated where \u201cthe error in question had a \u2018substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.\u2019 \u201d Winzer, 494 F.3d at 1201 (quoting Brecht, 507 U.S. at 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710). Although the firearms identification evidence and expert testimony was important in this case, the \u201cscientific certainty\u201d characterization was subject to cross examination which resulted in acknowledgment of subjectivity in the expert’s work. In addition, the district court properly instructed as to the role of expert testimony and there was substantial evidence otherwise linking the defendants to the Wilson and Bowser murders. We believe \u201ca reasonable degree of certainty in the ballistics field\u201d is the proper expert characterization of toolmark identification. Any error in this case from the \u201cscientific certainty\u201d characterization was harmless.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n