“There is no question that \u201ctool-mark identification in the context of ballistics has been used in the criminal context since at least 1929, and in Florida since at least 1937.\u201d King v. State, 89 So.3d 209, 228 (Fla.2012). In King, we held that tool mark examination in ballistics has been a well-documented methodology over the last century and is not new or novel. Id. We also note that in Commonwealth v. Whitacre, 878 A.2d 96 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of tool mark testimony concerning spent shotgun shells found at the scene of a crime, which were then compared with test-fired shotgun shells. In that case, a Frye hearing was held on the evidence presented by the firearm and tool mark examiner, who had determined by use of a comparison microscope that the spent shells had been discharged from a particular shotgun. Id. at 100\u201301. The appellate court concluded that the comparison methodology used on the shotgun shells had been in use since the 1930s, is a methodology that is accepted by the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners, and was neither new nor original. ”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
On the NAS report: “Similarly in this case, the report cites to existing publications, some of which were published before Schwebes’ murder and many of which were published during the years when Foster was pursuing postconviction relief. Most importantly, new research studies are not recognized as newly discovered evidence. See Schwab v. State, 969 So.2d 318, 325 (Fla.2007) (holding that \u201cnew opinions\u201d or \u201cnew research studies\u201d contained in journal articles are not newly discovered evidence); see also Rutherford v. State, 940 So.2d 1112, 1117 (Fla.2006) (holding American Bar Association report published in 2006 was not newly discovered evidence because it was \u201ca compilation of previously available information related to Florida’s death penalty system\u201d). Finally, just as we noted in Johnston, \u201c[n]othing in the report renders the forensic techniques used in this case unreliable\u201d and Foster \u201chas not identified how the article would demonstrate, in any specific way, that the testing methods or opinions in his case were deficient.\u201d”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n