Williams v. United States, 210 A.3d 734

Victim Min Soo Kang was shot multiple times; no eyewitnesses. SUV located and remotely disabled by OnStar; blood and bullet holes found inside.
Latent prints from the SUV matched Williams; a Hi‑Point firearm was recovered from Williams’s apartment; defendant had Newport cigarettes like those in the SUV.
Firearms/toolmark examiner testified unqualifiedly that the three bullets recovered from the SUV were fired from the Hi‑Point recovered from Williams’s apartment and stated he had “no doubt.”
Jury convicted Williams of first‑degree felony murder, attempted robbery, and weapons offenses; Williams appealed raising (among other claims) the unpreserved challenge to the examiner’s opinion testimony.
After this court’s initial panel decision (Williams I), the court issued Gardner and en banc Motorola, which changed the law governing admissibility of pattern‑matching expert testimony; Williams’s mandate was stayed and rehearing was granted.

Issue	Williams' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether it was error to admit unqualified firearms/toolmark opinion that a specific gun fired the specific bullets	Admission was erroneous because examiners cannot reliably match a specific bullet to a specific gun without a verifiable empirical foundation	Such testimony has long been admitted; Gardner only bars absolute certainty language, not identification absent express certainty	Error to admit unqualified opinion that a specific gun fired specific bullets (Gardner and Motorola control)
Whether the error was "plain" for unpreserved error review	Gardner and Motorola made such admission clearly erroneous on appeal	Trial was pre‑Motorola; admission was not plainly erroneous at trial	The error was plain under current law at time of appellate review
Whether the error affected Williams’s substantial rights (prejudice)	The ballistics testimony was central and prejudicial; reversal required	Even without the opinion testimony, strong circumstantial evidence (fingerprints, OnStar timing, eyewitness placing Williams at the SUV, cooperating witness statements, gun in apartment) would likely produce same verdict	Williams failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome; prejudice prong not met; convictions affirmed

Williams v. United States, 130 A.3d 343 (D.C. 2016) (initial panel opinion in this matter)
Gardner v. United States, 140 A.3d 1172 (D.C. 2016) (held firearms/toolmark experts may not give unqualified or absolute source identifications based on pattern matching)
Motorola, Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016) (en banc) (adopted Daubert/FRE 702 reliability framework for expert testimony)
Davis v. Moore, 772 A.2d 204 (D.C. 2001) (newly declared rules apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review)
In re Taylor, 73 A.3d 85 (D.C. 2013) (plain‑error test for unpreserved errors in criminal cases)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error standard authority)