The prosecution’s firearms expert linked the unspent round at the crime scene to Richard Allen’s gun, but the defense challenged the reliability of this analysis and highlighted the lack of certain investigative steps. The state’s expert’s testimony will continue when the trial resumes.

Date: Friday, October 25, 2024

Witness Testimonies:

Melissa Oberg (State’s Expert Witness): Oberg, a former firearms expert with the Indiana State Police, testified for the entirety of Day 7, focusing on her analysis of the unspent round found at the crime scene and Richard Allen’s Sig Sauer P226 pistol.

Key Points:

  • Oberg explained the basics of firearm and tool mark examination, including different types of tool marks and how cartridges are cycled through a firearm.
  • She detailed her analysis process, which involved assessing the condition of the evidence, test firing the firearm, and using a comparison microscope to compare the crime scene cartridge with test-fired cartridges from Allen’s gun.
  • Oberg stated that she found matching ejector, extractor, and head marks on the crime scene cartridge and a cartridge test-fired from Allen’s gun, concluding that the unspent round could have been cycled through Allen’s firearm.
  • She acknowledged that there is subjectivity in tool mark analysis and that there is debate within the field about its scientific validity.

Cross-Examination of Melissa Oberg (Defense Attorney Bradley Rozzi):

Key Points:

  • Rozzi questioned Oberg about her claim of never having made a mistake in her analysis.
  • He pointed out that the testing she relied on involved fired rounds, whereas the crime scene cartridge was unspent, and that there’s no proficiency testing involving unfired bullets.
  • Rozzi highlighted that Oberg could not determine when the crime scene cartridge had been cycled, and that the cycling marks on the gun could have changed over time.
  • He questioned the reliability of Oberg’s conclusion based solely on ejector marks.
  • Rozzi emphasized the subjectivity inherent in tool mark analysis and the fact that some consider it “junk science.”

Legal Arguments/Objections:

  • The prosecution objected to Rozzi’s line of questioning regarding whether it would be wise for the jury to draw conclusions based on photos of Oberg’s work product. The judge sustained the objection.
  • Prosecutor Nick McLeland emphasized that the term “sufficient agreement,” used by Oberg, is an industry term based on scientific meaning.

Judge’s Rulings:

  • Judge Frances Gull sustained the prosecution’s objection to Rozzi asking Oberg if comparing firearm testing to paternity testing would be reckless.
  • She sustained the prosecution’s objection regarding the jury drawing conclusions from photos of Oberg’s work product.

Notable Courtroom Events/Exchanges:

  • One of the four alternate jurors was excused for a family health emergency after the lunch break.
  • The prosecution experienced technical difficulties trying to show videos about the manufacturing and assembly of Sig Sauer firearms.
  • The court took a break at 3:40 p.m. after Rozzi’s cross-examination.
  • It was revealed that the state did not investigate how many 2016 black Ford Focuses were registered in Carroll County at the time of the crime, despite this being a key element in linking Allen to the scene.

Key Takeaways from Day 7:

  • Day 7 focused heavily on the firearms and tool mark evidence, with the prosecution relying significantly on Oberg’s testimony and analysis to tie Allen to the crime scene.
  • The defense successfully highlighted the subjective nature of tool mark analysis and the lack of proficiency testing for unfired rounds.
  • Questions arose about the thoroughness of the investigation, including the lack of effort to determine the prevalence of similar vehicles in the area and the reliance on potentially unreliable eyewitness testimony.
  • The trial recessed for the weekend with Oberg’s testimony still in progress. A DNA expert was expected to be called by the prosecution on Saturday.