Radley Balko, the award-winning journalist and writer, has his own Substack; he was the one who convinced me to start Forensic Science*, so blame him if you don’t like this. He has recently written on a ruling that could shake firearms examination to its core. It is worth the read for many reasons, not the least of which is Radley’s writing and his broad grasp of the scientific, cultural, and legal issues surrounding forensic science*. For example,
At most crime labs -- including both the FBI crime lab and the Illinois state crime lab that performed the analysis in the Cook County case -- ballistics analysts will “match” a bullet to a gun, but they will not “exclude” a particular bullet from having been fired from a particular gun as a matter of policy. Just to be clear: Their official policy is that they will utilize the alleged uniqueness of these microscopic marks to send someone to prison, but not to exonerate someone. [emphasis added]
Yeah. That’s why you should read his Substack post on the firearms ruling. Just click here.