88 F. Supp. 3d 239
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Government notified Laur ent that it will call LaCova as firearms-identification expert under Rule 16(a)(1)(G).
- Laurent moved in limine to preclude LaCova under Rule 702/Daubert and Kumho Tire, and sought a pretrial hearing.
- Government argues AFTE methodology is admissible and no Daubert hearing is necessary; defense requests limits and a foundation hearing.
- LaCova’s report concludes Duncan murder casings and deformed bullets were fired from Laurent’s bedroom gun; thirteen rounds and a deformed bullet found in Laurent’s apartment.
- Court conducts Daubert analysis, finds AFTE methodology admissible with limitations; pretrial hearing denied; trial foundation required for qualifications.
- Court to allow LaCova’s testimony only to a reasonable degree of ballistics certainty, not absolute certainty or exclusion of all other guns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of AFTE-based ballistics testimony under Rule 702/Daubert | Laurent argues the field is unreliable and not admissible | Laurent contends the methodology is admissible but subject to limits | Admissible under Rule 702 with limitations |
| Need for a separate Daubert hearing | Laurent seeks a pretrial Daubert hearing | Court should not require a separate Daubert hearing | No separate Daubert hearing required |
| Appropriate limits on certainty and scope of testimony | LaCova's certainty should be uncontested | Limited cross-examination suffices | Limit testimony to reasonable degree of ballistics certainty; no certainty/100% claims or exclusion of all other guns |
| Whether LaCova may describe the field as a 'science' | N/A | N/A | Court will defer ruling on scientific labeling; may address if Government alleges 'scientific' methods |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 506 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2007) (gatekeeping not always require a separate Daubert hearing)
- United States v. Otero, 849 F. Supp. 2d 425 (D.N.J. 2012) (AFTE methodology tested and admissible with limits)
- United States v. Glynn, 578 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (ballistics identification admissible under Daubert with caveats)
- United States v. Monteiro, 407 F. Supp. 2d 351 (D. Mass. 2006) (accepts current toolmark method; subject to limitations)
- United States v. Willock, 696 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md. 2010) (no mandatory pretrial Daubert hearing; cross-examination governs)