^^ From one who should know!
Printable View
^^ From one who should know!
I reload almost every thing I shoot, lots of calibers. I carry a bone stock pistol and use factory ammo for SD. I know many good Lawyers but I don't need to give any fuel to some weasel ambulance chasing dirt bag who wants to go after me on a contingency case for some BGs family. It will be bad enough if I have to defend myself no need to get more unwanted attention to the situation.
The weasel ambulance chasing dirt bag will be there regardless of what ammo you used.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBuckwheat
sadly you are correct!Quote:
Originally Posted by OldVet
First off, I think your instructor liked to listen to himself talk. You should of ask him for examples. The closest he probably would have come was the Harold Fish case, which the verdict was reversed on. That case did not revolve around the make of the rounds, but the caliber of the gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by txron
from: THR - View Single Post - Are legal concerns over carrying handloads trivial?Quote:
Originally Posted by gasmitty
As promised, here are the sources for records for any who feel a need to confirm the cases I have referenced previously where handloaded ammunition caused problems for people in the aftermath of shootings.
As I have noted in this thread earlier, and as the attorneys who have responded to this matter have confirmed, local trials and results are not usually available on-line. However, in each case, I have included the location where the physical records of the trials are archived.
NH v. Kennedy
James Kennedy, a sergeant on the Hampton, NH police force, pursued a drunk driver whose reckless operation of the vehicle had forced other motorists off the road. The suspect ended up in a ditch, stalled and trying to get underway again. Advised by radio that responding backup officers were still a distance away, and fearing that the man would get back on the road and kill himself and others, Kennedy approached the vehicle. At the driver’s door, the suspect grabbed Kennedy’s Colt .45 auto and pulled it towards himself. It discharged in his face, causing massive injury.
The reload in the gun was a 200 grain Speer JHP, loaded to duplicate the 1000 fps from a 5” barrel then advertised by Speer for the same bullet in loaded cartridge configuration.
This was the first case where I saw the argument, “Why wasn’t regular ammunition deadly enough for you,” used by opposing counsel. They charged Kennedy with aggravated assault. They made a large issue out of his use of handloads, suggesting that they were indicative of a reckless man obsessed with causing maximum damage.
Defense counsel hired the expert I suggested, Jim Cirillo, who did a splendid job of demolishing that argument and other bogus arguments against Kennedy at trial, and Kennedy was acquitted.
This case dates back to the late 1970s. The local courts tell me that the case documentation will be on file at Rockingham County Superior Court, PO Box 1258, Kingston, NH 03843. File search time is billed at $25 per hour for cases such as this that date back prior to 1988.
NJ V. Bias
This is the classic case of gunshot residue (GSR) evidence being complicated by the use of handloaded ammunition, resulting in a case being misinterpreted in a tragic and unjust way. On the night of 2/26/89, Danny Bias entered the master bedroom of his home to find his wife Lise holding the family home defense revolver, a 6” S&W 686, to her head. He told police that knowing that she had a history of suicidal ideation, he attempted to grab the gun, which discharged, killing her. The gun was loaded with four handloaded lead SWC cartridges headstamped Federal .38 Special +P.
Autopsy showed no GSR. The medical examiner determined that Lise Bias had a reach of 30”, and the NJSP Crime Lab in Trenton determined that the gun in question would deposit GSR to a distance of 50” or more with either factory Federal 158 grain SWC +P .38 Special, or handloads taken from his home under warrant for testing after Danny told them about the reloads. However, the reloads that were taken and tested had Remington-Peters headstamps on the casings and were obviously not from the same batch.
Danny had loaded 50 rounds into the Federal cases of 2.3, 2.6, and 2.9 grains of Bullseye, with Winchester primers, under an unusually light 115 grain SWC that he had cast himself, seeking a very light load that his recoil sensitive wife could handle. The gun had been loaded at random from that box of 50 and there was no way of knowing which of the three recipes was in the chamber from which the fatal bullet was launched.
We duplicated that load, and determined that with all of them and particularly the 2.3 grain load, GSR distribution was so light that it could not be reliably gathered or recovered, from distances as short as 24”. Unfortunately, the remaining rounds in the gun could not be disassembled for testing as they were the property of the court, and there is no forensic artifact that can determine the exact powder charge that was fired from a given spent cartridge.
According to an attorney who represented him later, police originally believed the death to be a suicide. However, the forensic evidence testing indicated that was not possible, and it was listed as suspicious death. Based largely on the GSR evidence, as they perceived it, the Warren County prosecutor’s office presented the case to the grand jury, which indicted Danny Bias for Murder in the First Degree in the death of his wife.
Attorney John Lanza represented Danny very effectively at his first trial, which ended in a hung jury. Legal fees exceeded $100,000, bankrupting Danny; Attorney Lanza, who believed then and now in his client’s innocence, swallowed some $90,000 worth of legal work for which he was never paid.
For his second trial, Bias was assigned attorney Elisabeth Smith by the Public Defender’s office. Challenging the quality of evidence collection, she was able to weaken the prosecution’s allegation that the GSR factor equaled murder, but because the GSR issue was so muddled by the handloaded ammo factor, she could not present concrete evidence that the circumstances were consistent with suicide, and the second trial ended with a hung jury in 1992. At this point, the prosecution having twice failed to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge threw out the murder charge.
It was after this that I personally lost track of the case. However, I’ve learned this past week that the case of NJ v. Daniel Bias was tried a third time in the mid-1990s, resulting in his being acquitted of Aggravated Manslaughter but convicted of Reckless Manslaughter. The appellate division of the Public Defender’s office handled his post-conviction relief and won him a fourth trial. The fourth trial, more than a decade after the shooting, ended with Danny Bias again convicted of Reckless Manslaughter. By now, the state had changed its theory and was suggesting that Danny had pointed the gun at her head to frighten her, thinking one of the two empty chambers would come up under the firing pin, but instead discharging the gun. Danny Bias was sentenced to six years in the penitentiary, and served three before being paroled. He remains a convicted felon who cannot own a firearm.
It is interesting to hear the advice of the attorneys who actually tried this case. John Lanza wrote, “When a hand load is used in an incident which becomes the subject of a civil or criminal trial, the duplication of that hand load poses a significant problem for both the plaintiff or the prosecutor and the defendant. Once used, there is no way, with certainty, to determine the amount of powder or propellant used for that load. This becomes significant when forensic testing is used in an effort to duplicate the shot and the resulting evidence on the victim or target.”
He adds, “With the commercial load, one would be in a better position to argue the uniformity between the loads used for testing and the subject load. With a hand load, you have no such uniformity. Also, the prosecution may utilize either standard loads or a different hand load in its testing. The result would be distorted and could be prejudicial to the defendant. Whether or not the judge would allow such a scientific test to be used at trial, is another issue, which, if allowed, would be devastating for the defense. From a strictly forensic standpoint, I would not recommend the use of hand loads because of the inherent lack of uniformity and the risk of unreliable test results. Once the jury hears the proof of an otherwise unreliable test, it can be very difficult to ‘unring the bell.’”
Ms. Smith had this to say, after defending Danny Bias through his last three trials. I asked her, “Is it safe to say that factory ammunition, with consistently replicable gunshot residue characteristics, (would) have proven that the gun was within reach of Lise’s head in her own hand, and kept the case from escalating as it did?”
She replied, “You’re certainly right about that. Gunshot residue was absolutely the focus of the first trial. The prosecution kept going back to the statement, “It couldn’t have happened the way he said it did’.”
The records on the Bias trials should be available through:
The Superior Court of New Jersey
Warren County
313 Second Street
PO Box 900
Belvedere, NJ 07823
Those who wish to follow the appellate track of this case will find it in the Atlantic Reporter.
142 N.J. 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table)
Supreme Court of New Jersey
State
v.
Daniel N. Bias
NOS. C-188 SEPT.TERM 1995, 40,813
Oct 03, 1995
Disposition: Cross-pet. Denied.
N.J. 1995.
State v. Bias
142 N>J> 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table)
TN v. Barnes
The decedent attacked Robert Barnes and his young daughter with a large knife and was shot to death by the defendant with SJHP .38 Special reloads from a Smith & Wesson Model 36. The distance between the two at the time of the shooting became a key element in the trial, and a misunderstanding of that distance was a primary reason he was charged with Murder. The evidence was messed up in a number of ways in this case, and I do not believe the reloaded ammo (which the prosecution did not recognize to be such until during the trial) was the key problem, but it definitely was part of a problem in reconstructing the case. We were able to do that without GSR evidence, and Mr. Barnes won an acquittal. In this case, I believe the use of factory ammo, combined with proper handling and preserving of the evidence by the initial investigators, would have made the defense much easier and might well have prevented the case from ever being lodged against him.
The records of TN v. Barnes are archived under case number 87297015 at:
Criminal Justice Center
201 Poplar
Suite 401
Memphis, TN 38103
Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems
A man attempted to disarm and murder Corporal Randy Willems of the Davenport, IA Police Department, screaming “Give me your (expletive deleted) gun, I’ll blow your (expletive deleted) brains out.” Willems shot him during the third disarming attempt, dropping him instantly with one hit to the abdomen from a department issue factory round, Fiocchi 9mm 115 grain JHP +P+. The subject survived and stated that the officer had shot him for nothing from a substantial distance away. GSR testing showed conclusively that the subject’s torso was approximately 18” from the muzzle of the issue Beretta 92 when it discharged. Randy was acquitted of criminal charges in the shooting at trial in 1990. Two years later, Randy and his department won the civil suit filed against them by the man who was shot.
I use this case when discussing handloads because it is a classic example of how the replicability of factory ammunition, in the forensic evidence sense, can annihilate false allegations by the “bad guy” against the “good guy” who shot him. The records of State of Iowa v. Corporal Randy Willems are archived in the Iowa District Court in Scott County, Davenport, Iowa. Those from the civil suit, Karwoski v. Willems and the City of Davenport, should be at the Iowa Civil Court of Scott County, also located in Davenport, Iowa.
A final word: I did not research the above and place it here to placate lightweight net ninjas. I did it because three recent Internet threads led me to believe that a number of decent people had honest questions about the real-world concerns about using handloads for self-defense, and were possibly putting themselves in jeopardy by doing so. For well over a decade, certain people have been creating an urban myth that says, “No one has ever gotten in trouble in court because they used handloads.”
This is now absolutely, and I hope finally, refuted.
Respectfully submitted,
Massad Ayoob
I have read these before, and while they certainly have merit, it's interesting to note that all but one have to do with GSR as the questionable piece of evidence that caused issues.
Not that this is anything to not consider, but it is clear that an argument that carrying reloads to be better killers as to paint the picture that the user of such is a blood thirst killer is a loosing argument.
While it is clear that distance from irregular or unknown GSR residue may cause complications in ( what percentage of all SD shootings combined?), in the grand scheme of things, I have made the decision for myself that it's not enough for me to be concerned with. Of course this is my choice, and my opinion.
Everyone must make their own choices.
Harryball, thanks for the cross-post.
I read these with great interest, and having seen it for the second time the NJ v. Bias case came back to me. Point is, there are some risks associated with handloads for self-defense. For the new reloader, the biggest risk may be procedural mistakes resulting in the gun going 'click' instead of 'bang.' For the veteran reloaders it may be the use of super-hot loads or loads that aren't documented or that can't be easily replicated. You, the individual who carries a defensive firearm, need to evaluate that risk and decide for yourself what the acceptable choices are. There are few absolutes in life ("never say never"), and to flatly state that one should NEVER use handloads in a defensive firearm is to apply a one-size-fits-all "solution" to a complex situation.
I've always been willing to carry handloads and completely disregard any debate on the topic.
No problem, it seemed to fit...Quote:
Originally Posted by gasmitty
I reload to save money, I have been doing it for about 20 years now. I enjoy it. I use factory rounds in my SD guns. For me, I do not want to take any unnecessary chances. Its really easy to duplicate my SD rounds...This is what I do. Everyone will have to make there own choice.
I asked this same basic question some time back on another forum. My motivation for the question was that I'm new to reloading and got 600 Hornady XTP bullets free...well almost free, I had to pay shipping of $20. I'll take 600 HP bullets for $20 any day.
Of course I got the same answers concerning the legal ramifications of using such horribly lethal ammo in my gun. So I came up with this solution. My EDC has factory SD ammo and my other HD pistols have factory SD ammo in them. What I'm doing is reloading the XTP bullets and those will be my second level, in case things get really ugly, ammo. My third level will be whatever FMJ range reloads I have on hand. Geeez I hope I never have to use any of them!
The idea that so many sheeple might be willing to believe that my 80% of maximum charge reloads are somehow more "deadly" than a factory +P+ is obsurd but of course that proverbial ambulance chaser could possibly convince them of that idea. So that led me to my final decision. YMMV
This brings back memories that I don't care to relive. First of all Ayoob has his facts wrong in the first case mentioned. There were all of two of us working that night and I only radioed for backup AFTER the event took place. They did try to make an issue of my reloads and the fact that I was using a .45 ACP rather than the department revolver, which by the way was a .357 magnum. One question was asked about the lethality of my "reloads" and my answer was that if I had been using a .357 magnum, the guy would have probably died from the muzzle blast, as it was the .45 removed a portion of his lower jaw. The gun was out for two reasons, they guy was driving 60mph down the wrong side of Route 1 and two, when I finally approached the window after his vehicle had gone out of control and stopped, he reached for something behind his right hip. Jim Cirillo was an excellent witness, Mass Ayoob, when interviewed, would not have been, in both my opinion and my attorney's opinion. There was only the one question that I remember during the trial and it was shot down very quickly. As for the charges, it had more to do with politics between the State Police and HPD than it did with what's right or wrong. 32 years have gone by and that is a night I will never forget, I got away from shooting for 18 years as a result of not wanting to be put into a similar situation by a corrupt police investigation/prosecutor ever again. As for handloads, I still handload and they may or may not be in my carry gun, which is still a 1911 in either .45 or .38 Super.
Sgt45, sorry that you have had to deal with that experience in your life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt45
very interesting post, and good stories. I have a question regarding Danny Bias. (I'm not a legal expert by any means, which is why I'm asking) You said he was tried 4 times for the same crime? (or were the charges different?) I had understood that a person could be tried once for a crime. Not including additional civil charges of course, such as being sued by the family of the victims after the criminal trial, etc.
Thanks for the responses everyone. I had hoped that this thread would have addressed the initial question of what difference it would make if you used reload components that made it clear the round wasn't factory ammo, but alas, the discussion was still good. From the various posts of examples of people getting in trouble for using reloads, I can see that if you were to use reloads, it would be wise to pick non-factory stamped brass and maybe go with hot loads with well established (and possibly somewhat dirty) powders and an established bullet. And, maybe standardize on one load.