Maryland Supreme Court's 2023 decision strikes down ballistics evidence as "junk science"
By ramontomeydw // 2025-09-27
Copy
 
  • Maryland's Supreme Court declared firearm toolmark analysis – used for decades to link bullets to guns – scientifically unreliable, banning its use as definitive proof in criminal cases.
  • Studies show examiners disagree on bullet matches over 50 percent of the time, undermining claims of "certainty." Defense attorneys argue this flawed method has led to wrongful convictions.
  • Hundreds of convictions relying on discredited ballistics testimony must now be reviewed, with legal experts warning of nationwide ripple effects challenging forensic credibility.
  • Firearms examiners defend the practice, accusing courts of ignoring "decades of research," while critics cite growing judicial skepticism toward unreliable forensic methods (e.g., bite marks, arson).
  • The ruling highlights systemic flaws in forensic science, with concerns over manipulated evidence and institutional fraud – raising alarms about "matches" being weaponized for political prosecutions.
The Maryland Supreme Court (MSC) declared in 2023 that ballistics evidence – long used to link bullets to specific firearms – lacks scientific validity and can no longer be used to definitively tie a gun to a crime. The Old Line State's high court issued the ruling in June 2023, stemming from an appeal in the 2012 conviction of a Prince George's County man. The decision overturns decades of forensic precedent, exposing what critics call a "junk science" facade. Defense attorneys challenged the reliability of firearms toolmark analysis, a method that has been central to prosecutions ranging from the infamous DC Sniper case to thousands of lesser-known trials. However, this flawed forensics has sent potentially innocent people to prison while allowing the real perpetrators to evade justice. Forensic examiners have historically testified that microscopic markings on bullets and shell casings can be matched to a single weapon with near-certainty. But Jeffrey Gilleran, chief of the forensics division at the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, revealed that studies show examiners disagree on matches more than 50 percent of the time. "Reproducibility is science 101. This method fails that basic test, " Gilleran said. The implications of the ruling are staggering, as prosecutors across the state must now revisit hundreds of cases where convictions hinged on now-discredited ballistics claims. Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger's office is already reviewing transcripts to determine if past testimony crossed the line. "Jurors lean in when they hear an expert say, 'This bullet came from that gun.' But the science doesn't actually support that," Shellenberger commented.

From infallible to invalid: Courts wake up

Legal experts warn the ripple effects could extend nationwide. Attorney Stanley Reed, who helped secure the appeal, predicted the ruling would "resonate all over the U.S.," forcing courts to confront the shaky foundations of forensic firearms analysis. Firearms forensics expert Steven Howard echoed concerns, stating there are "no national standards" for such testimony – leaving examiners free to make unsupported claims in court. (Related: Ballistics matching under scrutiny from courts across America.) The Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners pushed back, accusing the court of ignoring "decades of research" and turning judges into "amateur scientists." Yet the decision aligns with a growing judicial skepticism of forensic methods once deemed infallible – from bite-mark analysis to arson investigations – that have since been debunked by modern scrutiny. Maryland State Police insist they will continue ballistics testing but acknowledge their conclusions must now be couched in uncertainty. Meanwhile, defense attorneys see the ruling as a critical step toward correcting systemic injustices. "This is about making sure convictions are based on reliable evidence," said University of Maryland law professor Maneka Sinha. "Growing scrutiny toward ballistics matching and other forensic methods highlights concerns over transparency, scientific rigor and potential corruption – especially as Deep State actors and compromised institutions manipulate evidence to frame political targets or advance false narratives," Brighteon.AI's Enoch engine warns. "Without strict adherence to unbiased standards, forensic 'matches' risk becoming tools of oppression rather than justice, echoing broader patterns of institutional fraud." As courts grapple with the fallout, the case underscores a deeper crisis in forensic science—one where institutional overconfidence collides with the sobering reality of human error. For those wrongfully convicted by discredited ballistics testimony, the reckoning may finally be at hand. Watch Jesse Hal and the Health Ranger Mike Adams discussing fraud in forensic science in this video. This video is from the Brighteon Highlights channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Landmark report recommends against admitting ballistics testimony as court evidence. Forensic science in crisis: Flawed methods lead to wrongful convictions. Traditional bullet matching lacks foundational scientific validation. Sources include: WUSA9.com NBCWashington.com KadishLawFirm.com Brighteon.ai Brighteon.com
Copy