Hide Menu

1921-1924

Home > History > 1921-1924

1921

A court in Oregon allowed a sheriff to provide expert testimony involving the linkage of a fired cartridge case to the evidence rifle. The sheriff was able to explain and demonstrate to the court how a small flaw in the breechblock of the rifle left an identifiable mark on the rim of the ejected cartridge case that had been fired in the rifle.

1922

A. J. Eddy, practicing attorney and researcher in the area of bullet identification, testified in the Arizona case of murder suspect Paul V. Hadley. Eddy conducted numerous tests on the suspect murder weapon as well as other .32 caliber firearms. The Mauser pistol was test fired, using ammunition seized from Hadley; the test and fatal bullets were photographed. Eddy testified in court to his findings, concluding that each pistol left its own distinctive characteristic markings on bullets.

It was argued in court that Eddy did not qualify as an expert witness. However, the judge allowed Eddy’s testimony as being that of a “semi-expert.” Due in large part to Eddy’s testimony, Hadley was convicted. The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court. This ruling represented the first time that a state supreme court recognized firearms identification evidence as being valid and admissible.

1923

The Frye opinion, issued in Frye v. United States, significantly impacted the acceptance of expert testimony. Known as the “general acceptance” test, the Frye court explained:

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define... [W]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

1923

The number of court cases involving firearms testimony increased:

In an Oregon case, the judge allowed a pistol expert to testify that the evidence bullets were fired in a Colt Army Special revolver similar to the firearm owned by the defendant.
A Washington, D.C. court decided that expert testimony provided concerning the evidence bullet as having been fired from the defendant’s pistol was competent.
A Connecticut state court case, State v. Harold Israel, resulted in the prosecuting attorney recommending that the charge of murder be dismissed. His recommendation was based, in part, on the opinion of six expert witnesses that the fatal murder bullet could not have been fired from the defendant’s pistol.
Dr. J. Howard Mathews, the Chairman of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Wisconsin, was requested to examine a rifle used in a Wisconsin homicide case. As a result of this case, followed by others, he became involved in the examination and identification of firearms-related evidence.

1924

.32 Caliber bullet and
semiautomatic pistol

Dr. Sydney Smith examined firearms evidence related to the murder of the Sirdar (commander-in-chief) of the Egyptian army and governor-general of the Sudan, his driver, and aide-de-camp. The victims were shot and killed while driving through the streets of Cairo, Egypt. Dr. Smith reconstructed the crime scene and examined the car and firearms evidence.

Eight suspects were charged with murder or incitement to murder and tried in court. Dr. Smith’s examination, in conjunction with the items from the crime scene and autopsies, allowed him to identify the firearms used during the shooting. His testimony played a crucial role in the conviction of the suspects.

Dr. Smith wrote an article concerning the details of the investigation that appeared in the British Medical Journal in January 1926.

< Previous Page :: Next Page >