The Maryland Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to end the long-standing practice of calling in firearms experts during criminal proceedings to testify that a particular gun fired a specific bullet.
In a 4-3 opinion, the majority of justices found the scientific methodology, known as firearm "tool mark" analysis, is not reliable enough to allow experts to draw links between a gun fired and a particular bullet.
BIDEN'S CLIMATE AGENDA DREAMS COLLIDE WITH MILITARY REALITIES
However, the ruling written by Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader will still allow examiners to testify in instances in which "patterns and markings on bullets are consistent or inconsistent with those on bullets fired from a particular known firearm," according to the 59-page opinion.
The ruling comes in response to an appeal of a murder case in Prince George's County, but all decisions in the state's top court are binding to lower courts.
Until the Tuesday decision, it was fairly common for firearms examiners to testify that a gun apprehended by law enforcement fired bullets or casings discovered at a crime scene so long as they believed that to be true based on their findings from forensic analysis.
When a shooting occurs, police typically section off the crime scene with yellow tape before crime lab technicians arrive to take photos, mark evidence, and collect it for lab analysis. A primary point of evidence is typically fired cartridge casings.
The casings surround the outside of the bullet. Once a trigger is pulled, a firing pin hits the back of the casing, igniting a small explosion that sends the bullet down the barrel, which has a twisted metal within known as the "rifling" that helps spin the projectile for accuracy.
Supporters of the practice argue that firearms examiners rarely find an incorrect match after performing an extensive analysis. Meanwhile, critics say that numerous firearm analysis studies count the inconclusive results as correct, thereby artificially inflating the error rate.
Attorneys on both sides of the appeal cited studies that show an error rate on such examinations between 0% and 50%.
Justice Steven B. Gould, one of three who dissented from the majority, argued that the evidence at the core of the majority's analysis was sufficient to support an expert witness's "unqualified opinion that bullets recovered from the murder scene were fired from" a revolver used by a defendant in the case.
"Our concern is this: When the examiner does declare an identification or elimination, we want to know how reliable that determination is," Gould wrote. "The record shows that conclusive determinations of either kind (identification or elimination) are highly reliable."
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Assistant Maryland Attorney General Andrew J. DiMiceli argued in favor of using tool mark analysis in courtroom trials, saying that while experts cannot testify with complete certainty, they should still be allowed to tell the jury that based on their tests and opinion that a specific gun fired a specific bullet.
The Washington Examiner contacted the office of Attorney General Anthony Brown for a response.