Footnote describing defendant’s objection to expert’s qualificaitons: “Specifically, Harrell complained that Anderson \u201chas not attained a college degree in science,\u201d is not a member of any professional organization, and had not taken any proficiency tests at the time he performed the ballistics tests in issue. Aside from the fact that Harrell has not established that any of Anderson’s \u201cdeficiencies\u201d are actual requirements, Anderson testified that he had trained for three years in an apprenticeship-type program with a forensic tool mark examiner who had thirty years’ experience.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
” Further, though Harrell thinks that Anderson’s testimony should be excluded because Harrell believes current literature indicates there is no such thing as a \u201cperfect match\u201d between bullets and a particular gun, we note that the third case on which Harrell relies, Jones, addressed exactly that question. Jones sought \u201ca blanket rule barring as a matter of course all testimony purporting to tie cartridge cases and bullets to a particular gun … [citing] a number of articles and trial-level decisions questioning the efficacy of such evidence.\u201d . . . We refused to impose such a rule in light of our then-status as a non-Daubert state. . . . Accordingly, the circuit court could properly conclude it would not have granted any attempt by trial counsel to exclude Anderson’s testimony, because there was no basis on which the court should have done so.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n