Court Opinion

ID: 9630459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:11:30.129872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:03.556579
License: Public Domain

Concurring opinion by
Justice ROACH.
I join Part II, III, IV and V of the majority opinion. For the reasons stated below, I concur in result in Part I and do not join Part VI of the majority opinion.
However, I write separately because I believe that the majority opinion paints too broad of a brush in concluding that comparative bullet lead analysis (“CBLA”) evidence could never be scientifically reliable and relevant. There is sufficient scientific evidence to support parts of the CBLA analysis so as to allow for limited expert testimony on the subject. The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science (NRC) report, entitled Forensic Analysis: Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence,1 agrees with my conclusion. It states:
The committee found that CABL [compositional analysis of bullet lead] is sufficiently reliable to support testimony that bullets from the same CIVL [composi-tionally indistinguishable volume of lead] are more likely to be analytically indistinguishable than bullets from different CIVLs. An examiner may also testify that having CABL evidence that two bullets are analytically indistinguishable increases the probability that two bullets came from the same CIVL, versus no evidence of match status. Recommendation: Interpretation and testimony of examiners should be limited as described above, and assessed regularly.
... Expert witnesses should define the range of CIVLs that could make up the source of analytically indistinguishable bullets because of variability in the bullet manufacturing process. The possible existence of coincidentally indistinguishable CIVLs should be acknowledged in the laboratory report and by the expert witness on direct examination.
[[Image here]]
It is the conclusion of the committee that, in many cases, CABL is a reasonably accurate way of determining whether two bullets could have come from the same compositionally indistinguishable volume of lead. It may thus in appropriate cases provide additional evidence that ties a suspect to a crime, or in some eases evidence that tends to exonerate a suspect. CABL does not, however, have the unique specificity of techniques such as DNA typing to be used as standalone evidence. It is important that criminal justice professionals and juries understand the capabilities as well as the significant limitations of this forensic technique. The value and reliability of CABL will be enhanced if the recommendations set forth in this report are followed.
Id. at 6-7 (emphases removed).
With that said, I do not believe that the CBLA evidence offered in this matter was reliable, thus I concur with Part I of the majority opinion, which holds that the admission of this evidence constituted reversible error.
Because I continue to believe that this Court should not address issues that are *597not likely to recur upon retrial I do not join Part VI of the majority opinion. See Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 451, 473-74 (Ky.2005) (Roach, J., Concurring) (“However, because there is no likelihood that the jury issues, as discussed in Part III.C., will be present at retrial, I do not believe that we should address them. See Ice v. Commonwealth, 667 S.W.2d 671, 680 (Ky.1984) (‘Since we have reversed this case for the reasons previously given, we will not discuss the other points raised by appellant inasmuch as they are unlikely to recur on retrial of this case.’); Terry v. Commonwealth, 153 S.W.3d 794, 797 (Ky. 2005) (“We will also address other issues that are likely to recur upon retrial.’).”). During closing argument on retrial of this case, it is unlikely that the prosecutor will make a statement similar to the one presently at issue. Therefore, we should not address whether the statement made by the prosecutor constituted reversible error.

. The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, Forensic Analysis: Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence (2004), available at, http:// www.nap.edu/books/0309090792/html/.