STORY: "Forensics: appeals court finds gun forensic method is not ‘scientifically valid," by Reporter Michaela Bourgeois, published by KOIN, on June 20, 2025. (Thanks to Dr. Mike Bowers,for drawing this development to our attention in a post on his influential Blog Forensics and Law in Focus, (one of my favourites (in which he points out that, "Subjectivity in bullet casing matching method is not based on scientific proof. Bitemark opinions are no better.")
https://csidds.com/2025/06/20/forensics-appeals-court-finds-gun-forensic-method-is-not-scientifically-valid/
---------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Court documents from the appeals court describe scientific evidence, in part, as evidence that “draws its convincing force from some principle of science, mathematics and the like.” The court explained, “the state did not meet its burden to show that the AFTE method is scientifically valid, that is, that it is capable of measuring what it purports to measure and is able to produce consistent results when replicated.” The court continued, “That is so because the method does not actually measure the degree of correspondence between shell cases or bullets; rather, the practitioner’s decision on whether the degree of correspondence indicates a match ultimately depends entirely on subjective, unarticulated standards and criteria arrived at through the training and individualized experience of the practitioner.” “The state did not show that the method is replicable and therefore reliable: The method does not produce consistent results when replicated because it cannot be replicated. Multiple practitioners may analyze the same items and reach the same result, but each practitioner reaches that result based on application of their own subjective and unarticulated standards, not application of the same standards,” the appeals court added."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "Major changes could be coming to the way shootings are prosecuted in Oregon after a recent state appeals court ruling.
The case centers around the forensic practice of matching markings on bullets to specific guns under the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) method.
While the method has been used for decades, some critics argue that it is not based on measurable science.
Now, the Oregon Court of Appeals agrees – overturning a case that relied on the method.
In a May 29 decision, the appeals court found that the state did not prove the method is “scientifically valid.”
Plaintiff Odell Tony Adams was appealing convictions for unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm and second-degree criminal mischief.
As part of his appeal, Adams argued that the court erred by admitting testimony and a report of an expert as scientific evidence. According to court documents, the expert used the AFTE method and “identified” cartridge cases that were found at the scene of a shooting as having been fired from a gun that was found in Adams’ home.
Adams argued that the state “failed to establish that the AFTE method is scientifically valid and thus that evidence based on it is admissible.” The appeals court agreed with Adams.
The case stems from a 2018 shooting at the Speakeasy Lounge. At the scene, police found several .40 caliber shell cases on the ground along with bullet holes in two cars parked in the nightclub’s parking lot, according to court documents.
Police later obtained a warrant to search Adams’ home, where officers seized a Taurus handgun, court documents state.
While prepping the state’s case against Adams, a forensic examiner used the AFTE method to analyze the gun and the cartridge cases found at the scene, court records say.
The examiner determined that the gun seized from Adams’ home fired 10 cases found at the scene of the crime. Another AFTE examiner analyzed the gun and agreed with the original findings, court documents state.
Court documents from the appeals court describe scientific evidence, in part, as evidence that “draws its convincing force from some principle of science, mathematics and the like.”
The court explained, “the state did not meet its burden to show that the AFTE method is scientifically valid, that is, that it is capable of measuring what it purports to measure and is able to produce consistent results when replicated.”
The court continued, “That is so because the method does not actually measure the degree of correspondence between shell cases or bullets; rather, the practitioner’s decision on whether the degree of correspondence indicates a match ultimately depends entirely on subjective, unarticulated standards and criteria arrived at through the training and individualized experience of the practitioner.”
“The state did not show that the method is replicable and therefore reliable: The method does not produce consistent results when replicated because it cannot be replicated. Multiple practitioners may analyze the same items and reach the same result, but each practitioner reaches that result based on application of their own subjective and unarticulated standards, not application of the same standards,” the appeals court added.
The appeals court noted that Adams was tried on a federal charge from the same incident. In that case, Adams was granted a motion to exclude scientific testimony of an AFTE examiner who analyzed the same gun and cartridge.
In response to the appeals court finding, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield’s office told KOIN 6 News the office is planning to seek review by the Oregon Supreme Court and is working with law enforcement and prosecutors to determine next steps."
The entire story can be read at:
https/www.koin.com/news/oregon/oregon-appeals-court-finds-gun-forensics-method-is-not-scientifically-valid/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
