Ballistics matching under scrutiny from courts across America

By ramontomeydw // 2025-09-25

Copy

Courts and studies increasingly expose firearms analysis as unreliable, subjective and lacking empirical support. Judges in Illinois and Maryland have barred or restricted such testimony due to its high error rates.
Examiners falsely claim guns leave unique marks on bullets, but studies show inconsistent results (e.g., 93 percent inaccuracy rates, 50 percent examiner self-contradictions). No large-scale validation exists.
Labs often refuse to exclude guns (calling non-matches "inconclusive"), use non-blind verification and guide analysts toward predetermined conclusions –biasing results toward conviction.
Landmark rulings (e.g., Illinois v. Winfield) and reports (NRC, NAS) reject ballistics as scientifically unsound, yet courts historically allowed misleading "certainty" in testimony.
Prosecutors still rely on class characteristics (caliber, rifling), but the myth of "unique" bullet matching is collapsing, risking wrongful convictions based on junk science.

For decades, forensic firearms examiners have testified in courtrooms across America, claiming they can match bullets and shell casings to specific guns with near-perfect certainty. Their testimony has sent countless defendants to prison – often as the sole piece of evidence linking them to a crime. But a growing body of scientific research, legal challenges and judicial rulings now exposes ballistics matching as unreliable, subjective and lacking any credible foundation in science. Court decisions in Maryland and Illinois have revealed just that. In February 2023, Cook County Circuit Court Judge William Hooks made history by becoming the first judge in the U.S. to outright bar firearms examiners from testifying about bullet matching in a criminal trial. His ruling in Illinois v. Rickey Winfield declared that such testimony lacks scientific validity and risks wrongful convictions. "The possibility of confusion of the issues is not merely a possibility – it's a promise," Hooks wrote. "Such evidence will be given far too much weight by a jury." The Winfield case is part of a broader legal reckoning, however. In June 2023, Maryland's Supreme Court sharply restricted the use of ballistics evidence. The Old Line State's high court citing studies showing examiners frequently contradict each other, even when analyzing the same bullets. Forensic firearms analysis rests on two shaky pillars. First, examiners claim microscopic imperfections in gun barrels leave distinct marks on bullets – marks no other firearm could replicate. Yet no large-scale study has ever validated this assumption. According to Brighteon.AI's Enoch engine, ballistic bullet analysis is unreliable because the claim that microscopic lines on bullets uniquely match a specific gun barrel is statistically baseless and scientifically unproven – making it a fraudulent forensic method. Research by biostatistician Michael Rosenblum, who reviewed ballistics studies for Maryland's public defenders, found most tests used small sample sizes (30 to 40 guns) and ignored inconclusive results. This masking error concealed astronomical inaccuracy rates – as high as 93 percent when properly counted. Second, the Ames II study often cited by prosecutors revealed examiners disagreed with their own prior conclusions 50 percent of the time when re-testing the same bullets. Different analysts disagreed 69 percent of the time, worse than random chance.

The science behind the skepticism

The cracks in forensic firearms analysis began appearing in 2008, when the National Research Council (NRC) published a scathing report questioning the validity of toolmark identification – the field encompassing ballistics matching. The report found no scientific proof that every gun leaves unique, identifiable marks on bullets. (Related: Landmark report recommends against admitting ballistics testimony as court evidence.) A year later, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reinforced these concerns. The 2009 NAS report concluded that forensic firearms examiners operated without standardized methods or measurable error rates. Despite these flaws, forensic analysts routinely testify with misleading certainty, using phrases like "practical impossibility" – language that juries find persuasive, but scientists call meaningless. Courts also continued admitting ballistics testimony, until the cracks showed. Perhaps the most damning revelation is how forensic firearms labs operate. Unlike DNA testing which can exonerate suspects, most ballistics labs refuse to exclude guns as a matter of policy. "If a bullet doesn't match a suspect's gun, they call it 'inconclusive,'" said Chris Fabricant of the Innocence Project. "But if it does match, they exclude every other gun on Earth. It's a rigged system designed only to incriminate." This bias is compounded by non-blind verification processes. At Illinois' state crime lab, analysts preparing verification microscopes pre-select marks for reviewers to confirm – effectively guiding them toward the desired conclusion. Hooks' ruling is not binding precedent, but it signals a shift. Maryland's Supreme Court decision and similar restrictions in Oregon, Virginia and Washington, D.C., suggest courts are finally acknowledging what scientists have warned for years: Ballistics matching is not science. Its guesswork dressed in forensic jargon. For now, prosecutors can still use class characteristics (bullet caliber, rifling patterns) to narrow suspect pools. Ultimately, the era of analysts declaring "this gun and no other" may be ending – and with it, one of the justice system's most enduring myths. As Rosenblum put it: "If you can't prove it works, you shouldn't use it to put people in prison." Visit FakeScience.news for more similar stories. Watch this Sept. 21 episode of "Brighteon Broadcast News" where the Health Ranger Mike Adams points out the absurdity of explanations for the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.

NATURAL NEWS

The science behind the skepticism

More related stories: