Defendants Amina Mansell and Michael Ross were charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and related charges stemming from a report of shots fired in the vicinity of 1480 Washington Avenue, Bronx County.
Defendant Mansell filed a Frye motion to preclude NYPD ballistics expert testimony that shell casings found at the scene matched a firearm recovered from the defendants.
Similarly, defendant Ross filed a motion seeking preclusion of any expert testimony comparing spent bullets from the firearm to shell casings on the grounds that it now falls outside the spectrum of general acceptance in the relevant scientific communities. The People opposed both motions.
The court ordered a Frye hearing to test the reliability of any expert opinion based on toolmarks. The hearing commenced on December 20, 2019 and concluded on January 22, 2020.
The Court held that an expert might only testify as to whether there is evidence of class characteristics that would include or exclude the firearm at issue (Class characteristics are properties of physical evidence that can be associated only with a group and never with a single source: if evidence is determined to possess class characteristics it may serve as a mechanism to reduce the number of suspects, but it cannot be directly connected to one person or source.) The expert may only for instance indicate that the firearm cannot be ruled out as the source of the shell casings.
The term Frye motion comes from the case, Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013 ( D.C.. Cir 1923). In Frye, the court held that evidence could be admitted in court only if “the thing from which the deduction is made” is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” The case discussed the admissibility of polygraph test as evidence. The test was not widely accepted in 1923 and therefore the court ruled that polygraph test could not be used in court. The decision held that expert testimony based on expert’s credentials, experience, skill and reputation should be admitted.
Frye motion is a special type of motion in limine. The motion is raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The motion is usually used to preclude or exclude scientific evidence that is not the result of a theory that has “general acceptance” in the scientific community.
In this case, the Court held that
possession of a weapon in the second degree
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx
The scientific value of ballistics has been questioned by experts, especially in the wake of a US report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in the US. The reliability of findings made with the help of ballistic analysis was challenged, which led to the examination of the relevance and the admissibility of evidence derived from ballistic analysis, as it was for instance the case here.
However, that ruling was relatively isolated, as testimonies by ballistics experts are still held admissible in the majority of cases, according to the US National Center on Forensics. In another case, to deny a motion to exclude a testimony on forensic analysis, the court held that ‘the lack of adoption of the principles advanced in the PCAST Report and the remaining adherence to existing principles and standards concerning firearms exams’ was compelling.