Rifle & Ballistics

III. The Rifle Was Associated With Mr. Robinson — But the State Could Not Prove It Fired the Recovered Fragment

The State emphasizes that the rifle was connected to Mr. Robinson and his family. Ownership and prior possession are not disputed for purposes of this argument. But ownership does not establish use at a particular time.

Did the recovered rifle fire the projectile fragment submitted in this case? Her answer was not yes.

She could neither identify nor exclude the recovered rifle as having fired the jacket fragment. She testified that there was insufficient agreement and insufficient disagreement to reach either conclusion. Source: rev.com

• that this rifle fired the fatal projectile;
• that the fragment came through this barrel;
• or that microscopic markings tied the fragment to this weapon.

The State may say the rifle is “consistent.” But countless firearms can share class characteristics. The examiner herself agreed that bullets fired from different weapons can display similarities, and her final source conclusion remained inconclusive. Source: rev.com The fragment’s measured range — approximately .286 to .301 inch — was discussed as a class-characteristic measurement of a damaged jacket fragment. It was not an individualizing identification. The State wants the Court to hear “not excluded” as though it means “probably matched.” It does not. Not excluded is not identified. Inconclusive is not corroboration. The scientific evidence did not connect the fragment to Mr. Robinson’s rifle.