This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P alleges that F shot at someone at the Speakeasy Lounge. D was not caught on the night of the shooting, but officers and investigators took witness statements and seized a number of shell casings which corresponded to the number of bullet strikes found on an SUV and a Buick in the parking lot. Officers then used surveillance videos to identify the individuals present at the scene, including D. P obtained a search warrant for D's residence which authorized the seizure of D for his DNA and any evidence related to the shooting. In the bedroom, officers found clothing matching the description of that worn by the shooter, and they opened a crawlspace access panel located on the wall of the bedroom. Inside, they found a Taurus model PD 24/7 Pro .40 caliber handgun and a Ruger model SR-40 .40 caliber handgun. Forensic testing was done to compare the shell casings found at the scene with those produced by the guns seized. The initial comparison test done by the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) showed that, although the casings were .40 caliber, they were not shot from either the Taurus or the Ruger. P resubmitted the casings for testing by the NIBIN after discovering a possible error during the initial test. The second test concluded that the casings were a 'presumptive match' to the Taurus. P then submitted the casings for further forensic comparison testing at the Oregon State Police Crime Lab. Forensic scientist Travis D. Gover conducted the comparison testing concluding that the Taurus was an operable firearm and that the shell casings at the scene had been fired by the Taurus. Gover used what is known as the 'AFTE methodology,' which is used by members of the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Experts. D was charged with one count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm. P intended to rely on Mr. Gover and his testimony to prove that D had possessed the Taurus firearm. D moved to limit the testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert. In testimony, Grover used the term subjective multiple times. P agreed the testimony was subjective. P stated that it no longer intended to introduce any opinion from Gover that the shell casings matched the Taurus and that it would introduce only fact testimony from Gover. P also argued that Gover could still be called as an expert witness under FRE 702, in order to explain the 'procedures involved in the collection, examination, documentation, and analysis of the firearms and shell casings in this case.' P offered Grover as a scientific witness and not as a technical witness under Kumho Tire. It is possible to conclude that the methodology satisfies Daubert and that all forensic examiners accept that it has a two percent error rate.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.