IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ;
)
Plaintiff, )
) 02 CR 137

)
“ )

) Judge Ronald A. Guzman
)
)
RONALD MIKOS et al, )
)
)
Defendant. ,)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

‘The government will present expert testimony from I'BI tool marks specialist, Paul A.
Tangren. Agent Tangren will testify that firing pins on guns come in a variety of shapes and that
Herbert Schmidt, the manufacturer of the weapon allegedly possessed by the defendant, made
revolvers with firing pins in the same shape as the firing pin impression found on a spent .22
caliber bullet cartridge recovered from the defendant’s car approximately nine days after the

murder.

The defendant objects to Agent Tangren’s testimony; arguing that because he cannot
establish the number of other manufacturers that produce firearms which would leave the same

or similar firing pin impression, the evidence is insufficiently probative to be admissible under



Fed.R.Evid, 401 and 402, Because the jury is not told how many other manufacturers, and
therefore other models of handguns, could have madc the same impression, it can not reach a
determination as to the extent to which, if any, this tends to prove that the cartridge case in the
car was fired by the Herbert Schmidt revolver allegedly owned by Defendant, Defendant further
argues that the probative value of such evidence is outweighed by the danger that the jury would
be misled and confused. The imprimatur of testimony from an FBI expert would create a
substantial likelihood that the jury would be lulled into believing that the evidence had much
more probative value than it actually does. Therefore, the testimony should be precluded under

Fed. R. Evid. 403.

The government responds by pointing out that this testimony certainly makes it more
probable that the bullet in the spent casing found in defendant’s car was fired by a revolver
manufactured by Herbert Schmidt.' Other evidence tends to show that the revolver retuned to
Defendant by the police just three days prior to the murder was a .22 caliber revolver
manufactured by Herbert Schmidt; the victim was killed by .22 caliber bullets which from their
markings, could have been fired from a revolver manufactured by Herbert Schmidt; and, finally,
the .22 caliber Herbert Schmidt revolver returned to the defendant is now missing - the only one
of the several guns returned to him before the murder that is found to be missing after the

murder, When considered together, this evidence makes the government's theory, to wit, that

' Certainly if the examination revealed that the firing pin impression was not one made by
the type of firing pin used in Herbert Schmidt revolvers, the defense would be allowed to
introduce that evidence in order to show that the bullets that came from that spent 22 caliber
casing found in the defendant’s car afer the murder could not have been fired from the gun the
government alleges Defendant owned. The spent casing is, therefore, not evidence of his
commission of the crime.



Defendant killed the victim by shooting her with his now missing Herbert Schmidt revolver,
more likely. The evidence is thus both relevant and highly probative. The court agrees, Further,
the {act that the percentage of guns with the same shape firing pin is unknown does not pose a
danger of unfair prejudice. This fact does limit the value of the government’s evidence as it can
be argued that the bullet casing recovered from the car could have been fired from any number of
other guns and not from the Herbert Schmidt revolver. But it does not make the government’s
evidence either irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial, The relevance of this evidence is clear and the

probative valuc outweighs any potential unfair prejudice.

‘The motion is denied.

SO ORDERED ENTER: war 2,8 2009

RONALD A. GUZ!
District Judge

GiMasterlist Project Folders\USA V. RONALD MIKOS 02-137\MOO te Firing pin.wpd