USVI Public Records

Document text

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF, | SX-16-CR-257 Vv. Cite as: 2019 Super 142U FRANCIS WILLIAMS, JR., DEFENDANT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION Appearances: H. TIMOTHY PERRY, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General of the Virgin Islands For the People GORDON C. RHEA, ESQ. Gordon C. Rhea, P.C. For the Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION (Order entered on October 23, 2018) WILLOCKS, Presiding Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Francis Williams, Jr.*s (hereinafter “Williams”) Motion for Hearing Pursuant to Daubert/Kumho (hereinafter “Motion’) filed April 19, 2017. The People of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter “People”) filed an opposition to the Motion (hereinafter “Opposition”) on June 12, 2017. The Daubert Hearing was held on July 6, 2018. And now, as per the Court’s Order of October 10, 2018, the Court finds as follows: BACKGROUND On August | t, 2016, the bodies of Virgin Islands Police Officers Lesha Lammy and Kai Javois (hereinafter “Lammy” and “Javois” respectively) were discovered on the beach in the vicinity of Hamm’s Bluff. According to the medical examiner’s report, their deaths were caused by multiple gunshot wounds. Williams was arrested on suspicion of the murders. On August 12, 2016, police officers retrieved, inter alia, Williams’ .40 caliber Glock 27 pistol, serial number NGA455 (hereinafter People v. Williams 2019 VI Super 1421! SX-2016-CR-257 MEMORANDUM OPINION “Glock 27”) and Williams’ service weapon, a .40 caliber Glock 22 pistol, serial number KLC862 (hereinafter “Glock 22”), The Glock 27 and Glock 22 were tested against a spent bullet casing recovered from the Hamm’s Bluff crime scene near the body of Kai Javois. According to Williams, the scientific methodology of the individuals who compared the firearms to the casing is “inadequate and potentially misleading.” (Mot. 1.) The individuals in question are Reynold A. DeSouza (hereinafter DeSouza”) and Meredith Acosta (hereinafter Acosta”), who are proffered by the Government as expert witnesses. DeSouza is a Virgin Islands Police Department Firearms and Toolmark Examiner. (Transcript of Hearing 55, People v. Williams, Criminal No. SX-16-CR-257 (July 5, 2018)). He analyzed the shell casing recovered from the crime scene and determined that the marks on the recovered casing match the Glock 22 associated with Williams. (/d. 64-65.) Acosta is a Supervisory Firearm and Toolmark Examiner at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter “ATF”), (id. at 9), who conducted a peer review of DeSouza’s analysis and agreed with his findings. (/d. at 31-32.) , At the Hearing, Acosta and DeSouza testified about their experience in the field of firearms and toolmark examination, their qualifications, certifications, and training. (See id. at 12-17; 56-62.) Acosta explained that firearm and toolmark examination is a subdiscipline of forensic science used to establish whether a certain firearm or too! was used to make a mark. (/d. at 17.) Acosta testified that the science of firearm and toolmark examination has been generally accepted as reliable in courts globally for ninety years and by the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners. (/d. at 37-39.) Acosta stated that firearms and toolmark examiners use a scientific method that leads to reproducible tests and results. (See id. at 42.) She explained that each crime lab sets their own standards, but that there are general guidelines adhered to when a laboratory analysis is conducted. (/d. at 38.) She testified that the toolmarks made by firearms are generally traceable to individual firearms, even if firearms are manufactured on an assembly line one after the other. (See, e.g., id. at 40.) The error rate in matching toolmarks is very slight; less than one percent. (/d.) People v. Williams 2019 VI Super 142U SX-2016-CR-257 MEMORANDUM OPINION Furthermore, Acosta testified that published peer reviewed studies support the finding that each firearm leaves its own unique imprint on a shell or cartridge casing when fired because of the way firearms are manufactured. (/d. at 40.) She explained that when a firearm is fired, some of its components--the firing pin, breach base, barrel, ejector, and extractor--make markings on cartridge casings, projectiles (bullets), and sometimes the primer cap if it is struck hard enough. (/d. at 17.) Projectiles and casings have striations or scratches--the toolmarks--which are unique to an individual firearm, particularly its firing pin. (/d. at 17-20.) A comparison microscope—two microscopes put together with a bridge—is used to compare bullets and casings to look for familiar size and shape firing pins and general repeating patterns made by the same firearm. (/d. at 25.) The analysis may reveal a match in the markings--similarities, details, and individual markings which indicate that the same weapon was fired. (See id. at 20-21.) Or there may not be a match, meaning the markings are not at all the same or the tests are inconclusive. (/d. at 27.) Acosta also explained that a misidentification can occur when an examiner is not properly peer reviewed or lacks training and experience. (/d. at 40-41.) The purpose of a peer review is quality assurance to ensure that other firearm and toolmark examiners are conducting tests accurately. (/d. at 34.) Acosta performed a peer review of DeSouza’s tests. (/d.) With regard to the present matter, DeSouza testified that he examined toolmarks left by both the Glock 27 and the Glock 22 by test firing each gun into a bullet trap and then retrieving the projectile casings. (/d. at 63-64.) The casings were then compared to the casing from the crime scene using a comparison microscope located in the police laboratory on St. Croix. (/d. at 64.) DeSouza looked for matching marks left by the firing pin impressions. He testified that his analysis revealed that the striations on the Glock 27’s test-fired casings did not match the striations found on the casing from the crime scene. (Jd. at 65-66.) However, the striations created by the Glock 22’s test-fired casings matched the striations from the casing recovered from the crime scene. (/d. at 66.) Acosta flew to St. Croix to conduct her peer review in the Virgin Islands Police Department laboratory. (See id. at 26.) She was provided the cartridge casings that had already been tested. She People v. Williams 2019 VI Super 142U SX-2016-CR-257 MEMORANDUM OPINION also conducted her own test fires using the Glock 22 and Glock 27. (/d. at 29.) After firing the weapons and using a comparison microscope to analyze the casings, Acosta independently came to the same conclusion as DeSouza: the casing from the Hamm's Bluff crime scene matches the Glock 22 service weapon associated with Williams. (/d. at 30.) Acosta further stated on cross examination her understanding that Glocks are a common service weapon issued to police officers, (id. at 43-44), but neither she nor DeSouza knew the number of Mode} 22 Glocks in the Virgin Islands Police Department or the Territory. (/d. at 44; 69.) The analysis of both experts showed that the Glock 22 tests matched the shell casing from the crime scene, but both also testified on cross-examination that no other Glock shell casings were compared to the casing from the crime scene. (/d. at 46-47; 71-72.) Acosta was unable to determine when the crime scene casing may have been fired. (/d. at 49.) The projectiles recovered from the bodies of Lammy and Javois were also not compared to any firearm. (/d.) Acosta stated that bullets fired from a Glock usually contained insufficient markings to make an identification, and she did not know if the bullets recovered may have passed through the barrel of Williams’ Glock 22. (/d. at 49-50.) With respect to the manufacturing process of Glocks, Acosta testified that Glock firearms are made using computer generated machining techniques which result in firearms of the same size, shape and fittings. (/d.-at 45.) She also stated that, from her experience, although there could be a large number of Glocks with the same physical configurations, they all leave different toolmarks when fired. (/d. at 46.) Acosta stated that she is unaware of any misidentification involving model 22 Glocks. (Id. at 51.) After the close of testimony, the Court heard arguments from the parties. The Government noted that the introduction of ballistics and firearm evidence has long been accepted in the United States. (/d. at 79.) The Government also argued that DeSouza and Acosta well-qualified experts with a lot of experience between them. (/d.) Williams had no objection to the expert qualifications of Acosta and DeSouza as firearm and toolmark examiners. (/d. at 53; 77.) Williams objected only to the People v. Williams 2019 VI Super 142U SX-2016-CR-257 MEMORANDUM OPINION methodology of the tests conducted by DeSouza and Acosta: (See id. at 77.) He was particularly concerned that the experts did not fire other Glocks in order to make comparisons and stated that there was no scientific basis before the Court that indicated the veracity of the conclusion that each model 22 Glock would leave identifiably different toolmarks. (See id. at 81-83.) STANDARD OF REVIEW In the Virgin Islands, the standard for testimony by expert witnesses is governed by Virgin Islands Rule of Evidence 702. The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands held that the Daubert standard governs the admission of expert testimony in the Virgin Islands. See Antilles Sch., Inc. v. Lembach, 64 V.1. 400, 421 (V.I. 2016); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). Under Rule 702, Daubert instructed that {a] trial judge must determine at the outset ... whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. See Antilles Sch., Ine. at 416 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93). “To determine whether an expert’s opinion is based on reliable reasoning or methodology, the United States Supreme Court listed several non-exhaustive factors to consider, including whether the opinion can be (and has been) tested, whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication, what the known or potential rate of error is, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation.” Antilles Sch., Inc. at 416 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94). “The Daubert standard applies to expert testimony from non-scientists as well.” See Antilles Sch., Inc., 64 V.1. at 416 n.6 (citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147-51, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999)). DISCUSSION There is no question--or objection--that DeSouza and Acosta are qualified expert witnesses when it comes to firearm and toolmark examination. The Court must accept their testimony if it will assist the jury, and if the methodology of their tests is scientifically valid and applicable to this matter. People v. Williams 2019 Vi Super 142U SX-2016-CR-257 MEMORANDUM OPINION The substance of the testimony is that the shell casing recovered from the Hamm's Bluff crime scene came from a projectile that was fired from the Glock 22 issued to Williams by the Virgin Islands Police Department. This testimony is a crucial piece of the Government's case against Williams and will assist the jury by contextualizing certain alleged facts of the case: that Williams was present at the crime scene and that he killed Lammy and Javois. The Court is satisfied that the testimony of DeSouza and Acosta meets the Daubert standard. The Government has presented sufficient evidence that the methodology behind the testing and comparison of the Glock 22 to the casing from the crime scene is scientifically valid. Acosta testified at length about the formal training of firearm and toolmark examiners, including a year of education with the National Firearms Examiners Academy and continuing education with the Association of Firearms Toolmark Examiners, an international professional organization. Transcript of Hearing 12- 14, People v. Williams, Criminal No. SX-16-CR-257 (July 5, 2018)). This training indicates the existence and maintenance of scientific and professional standards for firearms toolmark examiners. DeSouza and Acosta testified to the general methods used by firearms toolmark examiners and how those methods are the culmination of nearly one-hundred years of study and science. (See id. at 37.) They also testified regarding the methods used in this particular case, including the test fires and use of the comparison microscope, which is standard practice. (See id. at 25; 36; 64.) Acosta provided peer-review of DeSouza's findings and her testimony was that she independently came to the same conclusion that he had. (/d. at 35.) This further indicates that DeSouza's opinion can be and has been tested, and that the results of his tests are consistently reproducible. The testimony also demonstrates that the methodology is broadly accepted and the potential for error in matching toolmarks to the firearm that caused the marks is very slight when the comparison is made by a qualified examiner such as DeSouza or Acosta. (/d. at 40.) There is no indication that DeSouza's or Acosta’s testimony would be misleading to the jury. People v. Williams 2019 VI Super 142U SX-2016-CR-257 MEMORANDUM OPINION Additionally, the methodology can be applied to this case because it is consistently used by investigators to determine whether a projectile, such as a bullet, or a casing came from a particular firearm. Here, a single shell casing was found at the crime scene, and Williams’ firearms were confiscated after his arrest. It is logical that Williams’ firearms should be tested against the recovered casing. A match indicates that Williams was potentially present at the crime scene, a relevant fact that will assist the jury in its deliberations. Therefore, the testing and comparison methodology can be properly applied to the facts at issue here. CONCLUSION In light of the evidence provided to the Court by DeSouza and Acosta, the Court finds that they are qualified experts in the field of firearm toolmark examination, and that the methodology used to test and compare Williams’ Glock 22 to the casing found at the Hamm's Bluff crime scene is reasonable, verifiable, and applicable to this matter despite a lack of comparison of the shell to any Glock firearm other than those associated with Williams. For these reasons, the Court will not exclude the testimony of either DeSouza or Acosta and recognizes their methodology as reliable and not misleading. This decision is in accordance with the Court's Opinion of October 22, 2018. DONE and so ORDERED this Z5tiay of October, 2019, COUunc RO Tune Xo Orpber 23, Far. dl cb HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS ATTEST: