 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawn6/30/2000
te relied to prove that Hawn murdered Sue Jack.
Monturo's opinion was based upon the fact that when a gun is fired various debris comes out of the end of the gun barrel behind the bullet; gas pressure, heat/flame, burned/unburned gunpowder residue, smoke, soot and lead. Test shots conducted in this case demonstrate that as this gun is fired from a distance closer and closer to its target, more and more of these debris materials are deposited on that target.
An examination of Sue Jack's clothing and the area around her entrance wound failed to reveal gunshot residue deposits in the amounts one would expect had Ms. Jack been shot at very close range. Monturo testified that one cannot determine how far a gun was away from its target when fired simply by the size of the bullet hole. Rather, it is necessary to look at the characteristics of that hole and the gunshot residue deposits.
In support of his defense theory that Sue Jack committed suicide, Hawn presented two firearms experts, Dr. Martin Fackler and Carl Haemmerle. These experts contradicted the State's expert, Chris Monturo, and opined that Sue Jack was shot at very close range, a contact shot or less than two inches away. The opinions of Fackler and Haemmerle were based primarily upon the size of the bullet hole in Sue Jack's clothing and the fact that test firings conducted with the gun demonstrate that the only way it would have produced a hole the size of the one observed in Sue Jack's clothing is from a shot fired from less than two inches away. Dr. Fackler also noted the presence of some gunshot residue on Sue Jack's clothing, some "stippling" around her entrance wound, and some sooting near that stippling.
On rebuttal the State offered testimony by another firearms expert, David Brundage. Hawn objected to any testimony by Brundage relating to gunshot residue deposits, claiming that such testimony would only be cumulative to the evidence already introduced during the State's case-in-chief through Chris Monturo and therefore not proper rebuttal. The trial court ruled that Brundage would be permitted to give his opinion on the validity of using bullet hole sizes to determine how far the gun was away when fired because that is what the defense firearms experts testified about. The trial court also ruled, however, that Brundage could not testify concerning any conclusions he formed after testing Sue Jack's clothing in relation to gunshot residue deposits because that evidence could have been presented during the State's case-in-chief.
When the prosecutor asked Brundage on rebuttal what testing procedures he uses to determine muzzle to garment distances for gunshots, Hawn objected that this line of inquiry was leading toward gunshot residue evidence and a rehashing of the evidence the State presented during its case-in-chief. The trial court sustained Hawn's objection.
Brundage then testified that it is improper and misleading to use bullet hole sizes to determine how far this gun was away from Sue Jack when fired. According to Brundage, the proper protocol for making such a determination requires consideration of the deposits or lack of deposits of gunshot residue materials that come out of the end of the barrel when the gun is fired. Hawn objected to Brundage explaining what these various materials are that come out of the gun barrel behind the bullet, but the trial court overruled Hawn's objection.
At that point, Brundage produced and identified State's Exhibit 69, a high speed photograph depicting a gun being fired, but not the gun used to kill Sue Jack. Brundage used this photograph, not previously disclosed to the defense, as demonstrative evidence to illustrate in v
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|