Attorney
Crime TV shows like CSI and NCIS have introduced many to the concept of ballistic evidence. These shows characterize ballistics as a powerful piece of evidence that police and prosecutors use to definitively prove that the victim committed the crime with a specific weapon. The reality, however, is that ballistics evidence, although useful in many cases, is not the indisputable smoking gun television presents it as. If you are currently facing gun crime charges, it’s important to understand the role and limitations of ballistics evidence in your case.
What Is Ballistics?
Ballistics is a type of forensic science concerned with characterizing the behavior of firearm projectiles. Ballistics is meant to identify unique marks on firearm projectiles and trace their trajectory, as well as document what kind of damage bullets make when they collide with materials. You can think of ballistics as a type of fingerprinting for bullets — It can identify what gun a bullet came from and other crime details, such as the location of the shooter.
How Is Ballistic Evidence Used in Court?
Ballistic evidence is often a tool prosecutors rely on to establish guilt. In most cases, ballistic evidence is used to tie the accused to the scene of the crime. For example, gun barrels contain ridges on the inside that impart marks on bullet casings fired from the gun. Police and investigators might note that markings on bullet casings found at the crime scene match those from a gun that the accused owns.
More generally, ballistic evidence can be used to establish a reliable picture of what transpired. For instance, the prosecution might rely on ballistic evidence to prove that the shooter approached from a specific direction or shot from a specific height. Ballistic evidence, such as bullet trajectory, gunpowder residue, bullet exit wounds, and bullet casing marks, are all types of ballistic evidence the prosecution can rely on to reconstruct a crime scene or question testimony.
Is Ballistics Evidence Reliable?
There is a commonly held notion that ballistics is an indisputable and settled science and that any conclusions it draws are ironclad. However, there have long been questions over the reliability of ballistic evidence, and many defense attorneys challenge its validity. For instance, in a widely cited case, United States v. Green, the court ruled that expert testimony was unable to determine whether bullet markings at the scene could conclusively prove a bullet came from a specific gun and not others.
More generally, many scientists have argued that the core assumption of ballistics science — that firearms leave unique, identifying marks — is not supported by sufficient evidence. There is significant variation in ballistics studies, which sheds doubt on the reliability of methods and whether ballistic evidence should count as admissible evidence in court.
Suffice it to say that concerning a specific criminal case, ballistic evidence is not impeachable. Prosecutors in Massachusetts may introduce ballistic evidence, but there are limits on the extent of conclusions they can draw from it. For instance, Mass. Gen. Laws 13-121A establishes that firearms identifications by a certified ballistics expert count prima facie as evidence. However, courts have ruled that experts can only admit to a reasonable degree of ballistic certainty.
Contact Our Worcester County Criminal Law Defense Firm
Ballistic evidence is a strong form of evidence but by no means conclusive on its own. A defense attorney can argue against the validity of ballistic evidence the prosecution presents to introduce reasonable doubt. If you have any more questions about the role of ballistics evidence in gun crime cases, contact Geraghty Law LLC, online or call today to speak to a criminal defense attorney in Worcester.
