NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0938-19T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
v. April 20, 2020
APPELLATE DIVISION DAVID GHIGLIOTTY,
Defendant-Respondent. _________________________
Argued telephonically March 18, 2020 – Decided April 20, 2020
Before Judges Fuentes, Haas and Enright.
On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 17-02-0154.
Michele C. Buckley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney; Michele C. Buckley, of counsel and on the brief).
Elizabeth Cheryl Jarit, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Elizabeth Cheryl Jarit, of counsel and on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by HAAS, J.A.D.
In this appeal, we address the novel issue of whether a firearms toolmark
identification expert's use of untested three-dimensional (3D) computer
imaging technology known as BULLETTRAX, in conjunction with the
traditional technique of comparing evidence and test bullets using a
comparison microscope, requires that a Frye1 hearing be held to establish the
scientific reliability of the BULLETTRAX machine and related software.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the
State's expert relied upon the BULLETTRAX technology and the images it
produced in concluding that a bullet fragment taken from the murder victim
likely came from a handgun later seized from defendant David Ghigliotty. In
so ruling, the court made extensive factual and credibility findings pertaining
to the expert's testimony about his use of the images, and its findings are
entitled to our deference on appeal. Under these circumstances, we conclude
that the court correctly determined that a Frye hearing was necessary to
demonstrate the reliability of the computer images of the bullets produced by
BULLETTRAX before the expert would be permitted to testify at trial.
1 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
A-0938-19T3 2 I.
To place this issue in its proper context,2 we begin by providing a
general overview of the field of firearm identification, which "is a specialized
sub-specialty of toolmark identification specifically related to the firearm
mechanism's working surfaces." Thompson at 7-8, 28. In this case, the "tool"
is the firearm. Thompson at 7; 2009 NRC Report at 150-51. The tool
surfaces, which include the interior of the firearm barrel, the chamber, and
parts of the action, "can produce toolmarks on fired and unfired ammunition
components." Thompson at 7. Toolmarks are "inherently three-dimensional."
2008 NRC Report at 186.
2 The necessary contextual background information pertaining to firearm and toolmark identification presented in this section is primarily taken from four scientific reports that defendant submitted to the trial court. Portions of the reports were also cited in the trial court's opinion.
The four reports, and the citations we will use to refer to them, are as follows: (1) Robert M. Thompson, Firearm Identification in the Forensic Science Laboratory (National District Attorneys Association, Alexandria, VA), 2010 (Thompson); (2) National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Feasibility, Accuracy, and Technical Capability of a National Ballistics Database, Ballistic Imaging (Nat'l Academies Press, Washington, D.C.), 2008 (2008 NRC Report); (3) National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (Nat'l Academies Press, Washington, D.C.), 2009 (2009 NRC Report); and (4) President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (Executive Office of the President), September 2016 (PCAST Report).
A-0938-19T3 3 Toolmark evidence may consist of "class characteristics," which are not
unique, and "individual characteristics," which are "microscopically
dissimilar." Thompson at 8-10. "Class characteristics" are firearm features
"shared by many items of the same type" and determined by the manufacturer
that "help narrow the population of potential firearm sources" when doing an
identification. Thompson at 8; 2009 NRC Report at 152. They include "the
size of the cartridge chambered by the firearm, the orientation of the extractor
and ejector, and the number, width, and twist direction of the land and grooves
of the barrel rifling." Thompson at 8, 15; 2009 NRC Report at 152.
In contrast, "individual characteristics" of a firearm are "fine
microscopic markings and textures" that "are random in nature, usually arising
from the tool working surface incidental to manufacture, but can also be the
result of use, wear, and possible care and/or abuse of the tool," and that form
striated or impressed toolmarks on ammunition. Thompson at 9-11; 2009 NRC
Report at 152. Because of their uniqueness, a firearm's individual
characteristics make firearm identification possible, so long as the toolmarks
imparted are "reproducible for comparisons." Thompson at 7-9.
"For the science of toolmark identification, the underlying hypothesis is
that a toolmark can be identified to a specific tool that produced it, to the
practical exclusion of all other tools." Thompson at 9-10; 2009 NRC Report at
A-0938-19T3 4 150. Although it is impossible to prove the hypothesis "by testing all tools
ever produced in the world," firearms examiners make identifications "based
on observation and experimentation" which includes the consideration of
"known non-match" toolmark comparisons. Thompson at 10; 2009 NRC
Report at 152.
The science of firearm and toolmark identification is well-established,
spanning over 100 years in the United States. Thompson at 8. "There is a
foundation of knowledge about firearm and toolmark identification that has
been organized over time and is described in forensic textbooks, scientific
literature, reference material, training manuals, and peer reviewed scientific
journals." Thompson at 28-29. The Association of Firearm and Toolmark
Examiners (AFTE), an international body of practitioners, is the largest
professional organization in the field and publishes a professional journal
concerning firearm and toolmark science. Thompson at 11, 29.
Neither the underlying principles nor the methodology has changed
significantly during the last 100 years. Thompson at 8. The AFTE recognizes
that the "most widely accepted method used in conducting a toolmark
examination is a side-by-side, microscopic comparison of the markings on a
questioned material item to known source marks imparted by a tool." PCAST
Report 104. A firearms toolmark examiner uses a comparison microscope to
A-0938-19T3 5 compare toolmarks on an evidence bullet with toolmarks present on a test fired
bullet from the suspected weapon that is linked to either the crime scene or a
suspect. Thompson at 10, 27. Class characteristics are evaluated first,
followed by individual characteristics. Thompson at 26; 2009 NRC Report at
152; PCAST Report at 11, 104.
The design of the comparison microscope, the primary tool used by
firearms toolmark examiners, has not changed in approximately eighty years.
Thompson at 8. It consists of two compound microscopes that are joined
together, "giving the examiner the ability to observe and compare two objects
at the same time under magnification." Ibid. While the comparison
microscope is considered "an absolutely necessary instrument" in making "the
identification of toolmarks on fired bullets," both Thompson's article and the
2009 NRC Report note that examiners "might use other complimentary
microscopic and photographic instrumentation." Thompson at 8; 2009 NRC
Report at 153.
When an examiner finds that the toolmarks on an evidence bullet and a
test bullet fired from the suspected weapon are in "sufficient agreement," a
firearm identification can be made. Thompson at 9-10, 26. "[T]he final
determination of a match is always done through direct physical comparison of
A-0938-19T3 6 the evidence by a firearms examiner, not the computer analysis of i mages."
2009 NRC Report at 153.
In 1992, the AFTE adopted a "Theory of Identification" and standardized
the terms and conclusions that firearms examiners should use to describe
examination results. Thompson at 11. Revised in 2011, the Theory of
Identification recognizes that identification is "subjective in nature" and
defines and explains the "sufficient agreement" standard used by examiners:
1. The theory of identification as it pertains to the comparison of toolmarks enables opinions of common origins to be made when the unique surface contours of two toolmarks are in "sufficient agreement."
2. This "sufficient agreement" is related to the significant duplication of random toolmarks as evidenced by a pattern or combination of patterns of surface contours. Significance is determined by the comparative examination of two or more sets of surface contour patterns comprised of individual peaks, ridges and furrows. Specifically, the relative height or depth, width, curvature and spatial relationship of the individual peaks, ridges and furrows within one set of surface contours are defined and compared to the corresponding features in the second set of surface contours. Agreement is significant when the agreement in individual characteristics exceeds the best agreement demonstrated between toolmarks known to have been produced by different tools and is consistent with agreement demonstrated by toolmarks known to have been produced by the same tool. The statement that "sufficient agreement" exists between two toolmarks means that the agreement of individual characteristics is of a quantity and quality that the likelihood of
A-0938-19T3 7 another tool making the mark is so remote as to be considered a practical impossibility.
3. Currently the interpretation of individualization/ identification is subjective in nature, founded on scientific principles and based on the examiner's training and experience.
[Theory of Identification as it Relates to Toolmarks: Revised, 43 AFTE J. 287 (2011) (emphasis added).]
Based on its Theory of Identification, the AFTE developed four potential
conclusions for examiners to make following an investigation: (1)
identification; (2) inconclusive; (3) elimination; and (4) unsuitable, meaning
that the evidence was not suited for examination. Thompson at 11-12.
An "identification" is "[a]greement of a combination of individual
characteristics and all discernible class characteristics where the extent of
agreement exceeds that which can occur in the comparison of toolmarks made
by different tools and is consistent with the agreement demonstrated by
toolmarks known to have been produced by the same tool." Thompson at 11.
A finding of "inconclusive" results when there exists: (1) "[s]ome
agreement of individual characteristics and all discernible class characteristics,
but insufficient for an identification"; or (2) "[a]greement of all discernible
class characteristics without agreement or disagreement of individual
characteristics due to an absence, insufficiency, or lack of reproducibility"; or
(3) "[a]greement of all discernible class characteristics and disagreement of
A-0938-19T3 8 individual characteristics, but insufficient for an elimination." Id. at 11-12. A
finding of "elimination" means that there exists "[s]ignificant disagreement of
discernible class characteristics and/or individual characteristics." Id. at 12.
As of 2010, the error rate in actual casework had not been studied or
determined. Id. at 29. However, "reviews of proficiency testing data show
that the error rate for misidentifications for firearm evidence is approximately
1.0%, and for toolmark evidence it is approximately 1.3%." Ibid. An
individual examiner's error rate should be considered in each case. Ibid.
II.
With this essential background in mind, we now turn to the facts of the
present case. On June 22, 2004, the body of the victim, Taji Pile, was found
on the side of the road with a bullet wound to the head. The police did not
recover a murder weapon at the scene, but were able to retrieve three bullets
from the victim's body.
During the investigation that followed, the police interviewed defendant,
who was "a close friend" of the victim. Defendant stated he and the victim had
used and sold marijuana together in the past, and that he last saw the victim on
the day he was killed. The police did not arrest or charge defendant at that
time.
A-0938-19T3 9 On May 5, 2005, the police arrested defendant for unlawful possession
of a handgun. The investigation revealed that the handgun had been purchased
by the victim's brother in October 2003. Defendant was later convicted of the
handgun charge.
Detective Gary Mayer, a firearms expert at the Union County
Prosecutor's Office, was responsible for conducting a firearm identification
test involving the three bullets found at the murder scene and the handgun
seized from defendant. Only one of the projectiles recovered at the murder
scene, a bullet jacket fragment that was "significantly damaged, was deemed
intact enough to be suitable for comparison."
Using only a standard comparison microscope, Mayer compared the
jacket fragment with test shots fired from the handgun. His comparison
yielded "negative results" or "an elimination."
In 2015, more than ten years after the victim's murder, the prosecutor's
office reopened its investigation. The detective assigned to the case asked
Lieutenant Michael Sandford, who was assigned to the Union County Police
Department's Firearms Identification Unit, 3 to help him "understand why
[Mayer's] original opinion . . . was a negative [or an elimination]." Sandford
3 Sandford had thirty-three years of experience in the Firearms Identification Unit, and had testified as an expert in court approximately eighty-five times.
A-0938-19T3 10 twice told the detective that as a matter of standard practice, "we don't re-
examine [what] another [firearms] examiner had examined," but "[a]fter
maybe the third time" the detective asked for help, Sandford agreed to conduct
the re-examination.
Toward that end, in 2016, Sandford completed a "bullet identification"
on the ballistic evidence, or a study to determine whether a projectile is "a
component or a bullet." Sandford determined that two of the recovered
projectiles were "lead core . . . from a bullet" that could not be used to conduct
a microscopic toolmark comparison. The third projectile, however, was a
"heavily damaged [bullet] jacket" that could be used for a microscopic
toolmark comparison. Sandford was unable to determine what company had
manufactured the bullet jacket.
Following the bullet identification study, Sandford conducted a
microscopic comparison of the bullet jacket, Mayer's test shots, and test shots
of his own, using a comparison microscope. He testified that the comparison
microscope enabled him "to observe two components or two pieces of
evidence side by side under a singular binocular eyepiece under the same
lighting, magnification and orientation."
Initially, Sandford was "unable to come to a conclusive result" and
therefore "couldn't support [Mayer's] opinion." He decided that he needed to
A-0938-19T3 11 examine the evidence "further" in order to "come to an opinion of [his] own."
Thereafter, Sandford took approximately ten additional test shots, usin g
ammunition from several different manufacturers because, in his experience,
"a firearm would mark differently with different ammunition." He then
compared the new test shots with the jacket fragment, and he also compared
the new test shots with his prior test shots and Mayer's test shots, reviewing
the evidence "many" times. Sandford testified that even with this additional
work with the comparison microscope, he still could not reach a conclusion on
the question of whether the fragment could have come from defendant's
handgun.
In June 2016, Sandford and another firearms identification examiner
from his unit, Sergeant Krzysztof Audinis, attended a training seminar in New
Orleans led by Andrew Boyle, the firearms reference manager at Ultra
Electronics Forensic Technology, Inc. (UEFT). Boyle's position was in the
sales and marketing group, and he presented workshops and demonstrations
related to the BULLETTRAX 4 machine and its software component,
Matchpoint.
4 At times, the trial court referred to BULLETTRAX as "BULLETRAX" or "BULLETRAX HD3D." However, the manufacturer's website uses BULLETTRAX as the nomenclature for the machine and we do so herein. See
A-0938-19T3 12 Boyle was well-versed in how BULLETTRAX 5 worked from a user
perspective, but he did not have a computer science background and was not a
firearms examiner. Because this technology was developed by UEFT's
computer programmers and software engineers, Boyle was not familiar with
the specific algorithms 6 and computer programming involved with the
technology.
Boyle explained that BULLETTRAX uses computer automation and
confocal microscopy to scan the surface of a bullet, read its topography in 3D,
and create 2D and 3D images of a bullet's surface. If the subject bullet is
damaged, the operator can program the machine to scan only portions of the
bullet. After the operator manually positions the bullet, sets the scanning
parameters, and presses the start button, the machine operates by itself.
The bullet's surface, rotated by a motor, is scanned with a confocal lens
and the machine automatically makes adjustments to ensure optimal, consistent
https://www.ultra-forensictechnology.com/en/our-products/ballistic- identification/bullettrax/ (accessed Mar. 23, 2020). 5 UEFT developed the BULLETTRAX machine in 2003. 6 Sandford testified that BULLETTRAX used an algorithm as part of the image acquisition process that "creates . . . a digital representation or a numeric representation of what it sees under the microscope." However, he did not know who created the algorithm, how it was developed, or how many versions had been developed. He said he "didn't have much interest in the algorithm," and admitted that he did not "fully understand" it.
A-0938-19T3 13 lighting and focus. According to Boyle, the scanner's capture area is 1.6
millimeters, meaning that small sections of the bullet are scanned and then
"stitched" together, using an algorithm, into a single image. Acquisition of the
image of a damaged bullet takes, on average, twenty to twenty-five minutes.
Once bullet images are acquired via BULLETTRAX, the images are
viewed using Matchpoint, a software program. According to Boyle,
Matchpoint's features are "designed to complement the workflow that [the
examiners] are accustomed to" and allows them to emulate how a visual
analysis using a comparison microscope would work, with certain advantag es.
For example, Boyle testified that the examiner can compare up to six
images at one time on a single screen as opposed to a single pair and switch
back and forth between 2D and 3D views. The images of the bullet's surface
can be viewed across a flat plane, with consistent lighting and focus applied to
each, allowing the examiner to "have a bird's-eye view of not just one little
area, like they would typically have on a comparison microscope." An
examiner can reposition the images, manipulate the lighting, brightness,
contrast and apply those changes instantaneously across all images, whereas
such adjustments must be made manually when using a comparison
microscope.
A-0938-19T3 14 Boyle testified that following his 2016 AFTE workshop, at which he
"show[ed] what we can do with bullet comparisons," Sandford reached out to
the company's sales director and "made arrangements to visit [UEFT's office
in] Montreal to have exhibits imaged into our system." Sandford explained
that the use of BULLETTRAX and Matchpoint for the Pile investigation
appealed to him because he "was looking . . . for tools that would help [him]
be more efficient in [his] examination" of the evidence. He testified that "a
microscopic comparison on . . . damaged projectiles is a very cumbersome
examination" and he "felt that [he] needed some other tool to help [him] to
complete this examination . . . in a reasonable amount of time." Sandford
noted the need to position the projectiles to ensure that "the area of interest
that you're looking at [is] top-dead center" on both projectiles, which requires
constant manual manipulation of the angles, lighting, and magnification.
Subsequently, Sandford brought the physical evidence to Montreal, and
used the Matchpoint software to view images of the evidence created by
BULLETTRAX.7 Boyle operated the BULLETTRAX machine and acquired
3D, black-and-white images of the surface of the damaged bullet jacket and
four test shots. Thus, Boyle was responsible for positioning the projectiles
7 This was the first and only time Sandford had ever used BULLETTRAX in conducting a firearms identification study.
A-0938-19T3 15 into the machine, adjusting the brightness, and operating the computer
program associated with it.
Thereafter, Sandford looked at the images side-by-side on a computer
screen using Matchpoint "to try and target areas of interest to determine . . . if
[he] was going to go back and continue with further microscopic comparisons
or not." He compared the bullet jacket to each of the four test shots. He also
looked at one of Mayer's test shots. Boyle showed Sandford how to use the
Matchpoint software, which included tools for flattening and manipulating the
images, adjusting the brightness, zooming in, and "different overlays of . . .
color scaling."
During this process, Sandford identified five areas of interest, which he
described as "four [LEAs] and . . . a G[EA] area on the . . . evidence item."
According to Sandford, a "LEA" is "[a] land engraved impression in rifling on
a projectile" and a "GEA" is "[a] groove engraved area."
Audinis accompanied Sandford to Montreal and while Sandford was
working on Matchpoint, he communicated his findings to Audinis, who
attempted to locate the areas of interest on the physical evidence using a
comparison microscope. The partners remained in Montreal for three days,
from June 20 through June 22, 2016.
A-0938-19T3 16 Sandford explained that acquisition of the images through
BULLETTRAX, which utilizes confocal microscopy, was advantageous
"because [BULLETTRAX] takes away the influence of color when looking at
[the] images" while "[a] comparison microscope . . . uses color and color can
influence you in different ways." Sandford testified that he incorporated some
of the grayscale images from BULLETTRAX, in the form of "screen shots,"
into his subsequent written report to the prosecutor's office, although he
asserted that he did not "make any conclusions" based on the BULLETTRAX
images. Sandford placed markings on the screen shots when he came back to
the lab to highlight the areas of interest he wanted to explore under t he
When Sandford returned to his lab, he "waited a couple [of] weeks to
clear [his] mind" before looking at the evidence again. Eventually, he used the
screen shots from BULLETTRAX "like[] a GPS" to guide his comparison
microscope analysis of the "areas of interest" and "came to an opinion of an
identification or a positive identification."
More specifically, Sandford explained that he "found sufficient
agreement in four different [LEAs] and a G[EA] . . . between the evidence and
a test shot." He testified that his positive identification of the bullet, as one that
was likely shot from defendant's gun, was grounded in his "training and
A-0938-19T3 17 experience and education as a practitioner in firearms identification" and his
handling of over 2300 cases. 8 Although Sandford was not able to make a
positive identification prior to using the BULLETTRAX technology, he
testified that all of the conclusions and opinions he rendered were based on his
"live comparison on a comparison microscope" as opposed to "photographs or
a computer image."
Sandford further explained that his use of Matchpoint and
BULLETTRAX helped him "define areas that [he] wanted to look at closer"
and "[t]o avoid . . . the cumbersome task of [manually] going around the entire
circumference of a damaged bullet" as he "wanted to do [the examination]
more efficiently." He said that not all of the areas of interest he flagged using
BULLETTRAX led to a finding of sufficient agreement under the comparison
microscope, and that, conversely, he had found areas of sufficient agreement
that he "did not see in Montreal." Thus, Sandford asserted that even had he
not used BULLETTRAX and Matchpoint to assist him, he "would have found
8 Sandford testified that Audinis conducted a peer review, meaning an independent examination of the evidence, after he made his identification in the lab based upon his "microscopic comparison work only." Sandford acknowledged that a peer reviewer "is not supposed to be involved" in the initial examination at all or have any information about the first examiner's conclusion. However, he stated that Audinis worked with him on the case because they were a "small lab" of only two examiners.
A-0938-19T3 18 those same areas of interest and identification points" anyway using the
comparison microscope "if [he] kept at it and continued [his] investigation."
Nevertheless, Sandford acknowledged that the BULLETTRAX images
served as a guide, helped him "move forward" with his examination of the
evidence, and that he "relied on . . . what [he] observed in . . . Montreal to look
at specific areas or certain areas . . . rather than going through the entire
circumference of the evidence." He said that there was "no way to put a time
frame" on how long an investigation using a comparison microscope might
take as it varied case to case.
With regard to Sandford's claim that the BULLETTRAX technology did
not affect his subsequent positive identification, defense counsel asked him
about an email exchange with a UEFT employee, Stacy Stern, while Sandford
was still in Montreal. Stern wrote to Sandford: "I heard things may be
looking good?" Sandford replied: "They just stepped over from looking good
to outstanding." Sandford testified that his use of the word "outstanding" in the
email meant "that the intent of what we went there for, we achieved that intent.
To identify the areas [of interest] that we wanted to look at."
Sandford did not discuss the possibility of image distortion with Boyle
but admitted that "it could have" affected how he located areas of interest. In
this regard, Boyle testified that "one of the drawbacks" of using confocal
A-0938-19T3 19 microscopy in BULLETTRAX "is that it has a difficult time capturing
information from especially steep slopes" and "deals better with . . . a more
stable shaped surface." This means that if there are areas with "especially
steep slopes" on a bullet surface, then the computer-generated image could
have "areas of missing data" that would appear as a "black region."
Boyle also stated that acquisition issues can result if a bullet surface is
too shiny or too dark, and artificial "noise" (markings not actually present on
the bullet) can show up in the image. He did not recall any steep slope issues
or other distortion problems with the images acquired in this case. Boyle said
that he was not aware of any validation studies done on BULLETTRAX
concerning image acquisition or image viewing.
Sandford kept in touch with Boyle after his trip to Montreal and gave a
presentation at the following year's AFTE training conference with him.
Sandford admitted that he discussed the Pile case during his pres entation and
that a printed "summary of that training" mentioned "how 3D comparison . . .
recently led to a conclusive result in a decade-old cold case homicide." Boyle
testified that the seminar "showcase[d] the benefits of how 3D analysis helped
them work the case material" and "images were shown in regards to how the
machine aided them in pinpointing areas of interest to explore on the
comparison microscope."
A-0938-19T3 20 III.
Based upon Sandford's positive identification of the bullet fragment as a
projectile that had been shot from the gun seized from defendant in 2005, a
grand jury indicted defendant on March 1, 2017 for the first-degree murder of
Taji Pile, second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, and second-degree
unlawful possession of a firearm.
On April 5, 2018, defendant moved to preclude or limit Sandford's
proposed expert testimony pursuant to Frye. The court scheduled a N.J.R.E.
104 hearing and ordered the State to produce "any and all manuals, policies or
procedures from [UEFT]" for the BULLETTRAX software. UEFT refused to
provide this information to the State and, therefore, it was unable to comply
with the court's order.
The court thereafter conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing at which
Sandford and Boyle testified as discussed above. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the court rendered a lengthy written opinion and order granting
defendant's motion for a Frye hearing to determine the reliability of the
BULLETTRAX machine and the Matchpoint software. Before discussing that
ruling in greater detail, we briefly summarize the legal principles governing
the issue presented.
A-0938-19T3 21 "[T]he Judiciary must ensure that proceedings are fair to both the
accused and the victim. Trial judges partly fulfill that responsibility by
serving as a gatekeeper. In that role, they must assess whether expert
testimony is sufficiently reliable before it can be presented to a jury." State v.
J.L.G., 234 N.J. 265, 307-08 (2018). "While juries would not always accord
excessive weight to unreliable expert testimony, there is substantial danger that
they would do so, precisely because the evidence is labeled 'scientific' and
'expert.'" State v. Cavallo, 88 N.J. 508, 518 (1982).
Pursuant to N.J.R.E. 702, "[i]f scientific . . . knowledge will assist the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a
witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." To meet
this requirement,
the proponent of expert evidence must establish three things: (1) the subject matter of the testimony must be "beyond the ken of the average juror"; (2) the field of inquiry "must be at a state of the art such that an expert's testimony could be sufficiently reliable"; and (3) "the witness must have sufficient expertise to offer the" testimony.
[J.L.G., 234 N.J. at 280 (quoting State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 208 (1984)).]
The three prongs cited above "are construed liberally in light of Rule
702's tilt in favor of the admissibility of expert testimony." State v. Jenewicz,
A-0938-19T3 22 193 N.J. 440, 454 (2008). At issue in this case is the second prong concerning
reliability of the field of inquiry. "In criminal cases, [our Supreme] Court has
continued to rely on the Frye standard to assess reliability." J.L.G., 234 N.J. at
280; accord State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 170 (1997); State v. Torres, 183
N.J. 554, 568 (2005). 9
In Frye, 293 F. at 1014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
explained:
Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well- recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.
The Frye test "requires trial judges to determine whether the science
underlying the proposed expert testimony has 'gained general acceptance in the
9 In In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J. 340, 347-48, 398-99 (2018), the Supreme Court adopted the factors identified in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1993), which describe a methodology- based approach for determining scientific reliability, to "aid our trial courts in their role as the gatekeeper of scientific expert testimony in civil cases," but explicitly "retain[ed] the general acceptance test for reliability [as established in Frye,] in criminal matters." See also State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482, 492 (2018) (noting that the Court has "not altered [its] adherence to the [Frye] general acceptance test for reliability in criminal matters").
A-0938-19T3 23 particular field in which it belongs.'" J.L.G., 234 N.J. at 280 (quoting Frye,
293 F. at 1014). "[T]here are three ways to establish general acceptance under
Frye: expert testimony, authoritative scientific and legal writings, and judicial
opinions." J.L.G., 234 N.J. at 281. "Proof of general acceptance does not
mean that there must be complete agreement in the scientific community abo ut
the techniques, methodology, or procedures that underlie the scientific
evidence." State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 91-92 (2008); accord State v. McGuire,
419 N.J. Super. 88, 133 (App. Div. 2011).
"[T]ool mark analysis is not a newcomer to the courtroom." McGuire,
419 N.J. Super. at 130. "Testimony by tool mark experts has been admitted in
New Jersey courts [under the Frye standard] without objection" and also "in
other jurisdictions." Id. at 130-31; see State v. Behn, 375 N.J. Super. 409,
416-19 (App. Div. 2005) (discussing admitted testimony from "a ballistics and
tool mark identification expert" linking bullets recovered from victim to a rifle
that the defendant had purchased); State v. Cito, 213 N.J. Super. 296, 299
(App. Div. 1986) (discussing admitted testimony from a toolmark expert
linking a screwdriver seized from the defendant's home to the scene of the
crime).
A-0938-19T3 24 IV.
Here, the trial court's concern was not with the general acceptance of the
discipline of firearm toolmark identification, but rather with the new technique
Sandford employed in reaching his conclusion. After making extensive factual
findings pertaining to the testimony and the relevant scientific studies, it held
"that it need not hold a Frye hearing to determine the general acceptance of
toolmark identification." However, it conditioned the admissibility of
Sandford's expert testimony upon a finding that BULLETTRAX and
Matchpoint were scientifically reliable and held that a Frye hearing was
warranted for that purpose.
While the court credited Sandford's testimony "that [BULLETTRAX]
provided assistance in identifying areas of interest on the evidence bullet" and
served as "a shortcut to save time in conducting the same review he otherwise
would have made manually over the entire circumference of the evidence
bullet and comparison bullets," it discredited Sandford's testimony that
BULLETTRAX "did not inform his ultimate opinion in this matter ." Instead,
it found that "the [BULLETTRAX] images . . . at least partially formed the
basis of [Sandford's] opinion that the evidence bullet and the test fired shot in
this case were a match" and were "so intertwined" with his "subsequent
A-0938-19T3 25 laboratory comparisons" that they "cannot be separated from his later
identification simply because time passed."
Thus, the court found "that the images created by [BULLETTRAX] were
an integral part of . . . Sandford's opinion" that the bullet fragment came from
defendant's gun. The court noted that Sandford testified that "h e used the
screenshots of the images he viewed on Matchpoint as a 'GPS' in order to
readily identify the areas of the evidence bullet that he believed were 'of
interest' when he examined the bullet under his confocal microscope back in
New Jersey."
The court continued:
This [c]ourt is therefore unassuaged by . . . Sandford's testimony that he could have made the identification without the use of [BULLETTRAX] because, stated simply, that is not what occurred here and to say that the identification was inevitable is purely speculative. This assertion is also contradicted by the findings of the original toolmark examiner [Mayer] who excluded the firearm in this case as a possible source of the evidence bullet.
The court also cited Sandford's email exchange with Stern while in
Montreal in which he wrote that due to his use of BULLETTRAX, the
situation "stepped over from looking good to outstanding," and found that his
statement "call[ed] into question [his] claim that he never had an 'ah-ha'
moment or a point in time where he thought there would probably be an
A-0938-19T3 26 identification while using" BULLETTRAX. It further found that Sandford's
testimony that the images did not inform his ultimate opinion was "even more
difficult to reconcile" since "Audinis . . . was using a comparison microscope
in the same room as . . . Sandford, as he directed him to examine certain areas
of the evidence bullet."
In addition, the court cited Sandford's joint presentation with Boyle at
the 2017 AFTE conference "on how new 3-D comparison tools led to a
conclusive identification in a decade-old cold case" as further evidence that,
despite his assertions to the contrary, the BULLETTRAX technology Sandford
used in Montreal clearly influenced his later conclusion that the bullet
fragment was shot from defendant's gun.
As to the admissibility of evidence concerning this new technology in
the absence of a Frye hearing, the court found, based upon Boyle's credible
testimony, that BULLETTRAX "is a highly automated technology that does
not merely photograph the bullet's surface, as suggested by the State, but
instead digitally recreates the entire surface area." It also cited the fact that it
"was unable to find—and the parties did not present—any published or
unpublished decisions addressing the reliability or general acceptance of
[BULLETTRAX] in connection with the examination and identification of
ballistics."
A-0938-19T3 27 As to the Matchpoint software, the court found that its reliability was
"[e]qually unproven at this time." It added that the record lacked "any
validation studies or indeed any records concerning the testing
[BULLETTRAX] has undergone to determine the accuracy and reliability of
the images it produces [and/or] the [Matchpoint] software that permits
examiner interaction with those images."
Accordingly, the court ordered that because Sandford relied upon the
untested BULLETTRAX technology in reaching his positive identification of
the bullet fragment, a Frye hearing was needed to determine the scientific
reliability of his proposed testimony concerning this device.
The court also addressed two other issues raised by defendant. First,
defendant again demanded that the State provide him with the BULLETTRAX
algorithms in advance of the Frye hearing. In support of this request, however,
defendant relied solely upon defense counsel's request for this information, and
did not submit a certification from its expert detailing the reasons why the
production of the algorithms was necessary, or what other specific discovery
concerning BULLETTRAX and Matchpoint might be warranted.
Nevertheless, citing Chun, 194 N.J. at 69-70, the court again found that
production of the algorithms was necessary to ensure "defendant's right to a
fair trial." Without citing anything else, the court found that the Sta te's
A-0938-19T3 28 provision of this information would allow "the defense . . . to effectively cross
examine the State's witnesses at trial and to prepare for the Frye hearing" since
"[t]he review and testing of algorithms and/or source coding utilized in a new
or untested technology is required in order to determine its reliability." While
the court stated it was amenable to making the production of the algorithms
subject to a protective order, the terms of such an order were not delineated by
the court or the parties.
Finally, defendant argued that if the BULLETTRAX technology
ultimately passed the Frye test, Sandford should not be permitted to testify that
he had come to his conclusion concerning the bullet fragment to a reasonable
degree of scientific certainty. Instead, defendant asked that Sandford's
testimony be limited to his claim that the evidence bullet was consistent with
having been fired from the gun recovered from defendant, but not to the
exclusion of all other guns. After examining the studies discussed earlier in
this opinion and caselaw from other jurisdictions, the court granted this request
even though if BULLETTRAX did not survive Frye scrutiny, the court's order
limiting Sandford's expert testimony would be moot.
V.
We subsequently granted the State's motion for leave to appeal. On
appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred by concluding that Sandford
A-0938-19T3 29 relied upon the BULLETTRAX technology in arriving at his conclusion that
the bullet fragment came from defendant's gun. It alleges that Sandford denied
basing his findings on what he observed in Montreal on the BULLETTRAX
machine and, instead, his "ultimate results and conclusions" were made using
only a standard comparison microscope. Therefore, the State claims that a
Frye hearing concerning BULLETTRAX and Matchpoint was not necessary.
We reject these contentions because the court's contrary determinations were
squarely based upon its judgment that Sandford's testimony on this point was
not credible.
"[W]hen the result of the contest must turn on the truthfulness of
witnesses, the superior advantage of the trial judge in seeing and hearing and
appraising the disputants must ordinarily be regarded as the fulcrum on which
the issue should be resolved." Abeles v. Adams Eng'g Co., 35 N.J. 411, 423-
24 (1961). For this reason, appellate "[c]ourts generally defer to a trial court's
credibility findings about the testimony of expert witnesses[]" and "accept the
court's factual 'findings to the extent that they are supported by substantial
credible evidence in the record[.]'" J.L.G., 234 N.J. at 301 (quoting Chun, 194
N.J. at 93).
Thus, "[a]n appellate court should not disturb the trial court's findings
merely because 'it might have reached a different conclusion were it the trial
A-0938-19T3 30 tribunal' or because 'the trial court decided all evidence or inference conflicts
in favor of one side' in a close case." State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007)
(quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)). Accordingly, "[a] trial
court's findings should be disturbed only if they are so clearly mistaken 'that
the interests of justice demand intervention and correction.'" Ibid. (quoting
Johnson, 42 N.J. at 162).
Applying this standard, we are satisfied that the trial court's factual
findings and credibility determinations are fully supported by substantial
credible evidence and, as such, are unassailable on appeal. The record makes
clear that the BULLETTRAX images, which Sandford reviewed both while in
Montreal and back in his lab in New Jersey, prompted him to reexamine the
physical evidence under the comparison microscope. He even testified that he
included some of the images in his report to the prosecutor's office. After
reviewing the images and reexamining the evidence, he changed his ultimate
conclusion from "inconclusive" to an "identification." In that regard, the
BULLETTRAX images clearly aided and influenced the course of his
investigation and informed his ultimate opinion, as the trial court properly
found.
In reaching this conclusion, the court considered Sandford's repeated
assertion that he was able to put aside everything he learned from examining
A-0938-19T3 31 the bullet fragment and the test bullets with the BULLETTRAX machine.
However, the court rejected this claim based on its assessment of Sandford's
credibility on the stand, coupled with the substantive evidence in the record
that firmly demonstrated that the improved images Sandford obtained from the
new technology clearly colored his final conclusion.
In this regard, it is important to recall that toolmark identification, while
"founded on scientific principles," is "subjective in nature, . . . and based on
the examiner's training and experience." Theory of Identification, 43 AFTE J.
at 287. Here, Sandford had previously been unable to make a finding on the
comparability of the bullet fragment taken from the victim and the test bullets
fired from defendant's gun. His predecessor, Mayer, had already reached a
negative conclusion. It was only after Sandford had the opportunity to use the
new BULLETTRAX technology that he was able to change his determination
from inconclusive to positive.
The State claims that the trial court should have accepted Sandford's
explanation that the BULLETTRAX merely provided him with "areas of
interest" that he could later examine with the comparison microscope. But,
this begs the question. With unlimited time to examine the bullet fragment and
the test bullets using the microscope, Sandford admitted he could not reach a
definitive conclusion before going to Montreal. It was only after the
A-0938-19T3 32 BULLETTRAX machine guided his analysis that the State's expert was able to
find the areas of the evidence that ultimately led him to change his original
findings. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the trial court
properly rejected the State's argument that the BULLETTRAX technology
played no role in Sandford's final opinion.
The trial court also pointed to other facts in the record that supported its
determination that Sandford would not have been able to reach his conclusions
if he had not had access to BULLETTRAX. For example, Sandford responded
to an email sent by a UEFT employee by stating that his work on the evidence
had gone "from looking good to outstanding" after he was able to use the new
technology. Sandford later gave a seminar on BULLETTRAX that described
how using the machine "led to a conclusive identification in a decade-old cold
case." In addition, the court noted that it was "even more difficult to
reconcile" Sandford's claim that he did not rely on BULLETTRAX to reach his
conclusion because his partner, Audinis, was in Montreal at the same time
using a comparison microscope to examine the evidence bullet as Sandford
used the computer images as "a GPS" to guide him.
In sum, we discern no basis for disturbing the trial court's determination
that BULLETTRAX "play[ed] a fundamental role in the ballistics examination
in this case" and, like that court, we cannot "accept as plausible the assertion
A-0938-19T3 33 that [BULLETTRAX] did not form at least a partial basis for . . . Sandford's
ultimate conclusion."
In so ruling, we reject the State's reliance upon this court's decision in
McGuire in support of its contention that Sandford made an independent
evaluation of the evidence by examining it with a standard comparison
microscope after employing BULLETTRAX and, therefore, his use of the new
technology should be disregarded. In McGuire, a toolmark expert was called
upon to opine whether a plastic garbage bag similar to one found in the
defendant's apartment might have been used in connection with the murder of
her husband. 419 N.J. Super. at 119, 124, 127-30. After examining the bags,
the expert visited the plastic bag manufacturing plant, where he spoke with a
plastics engineer who advised him that a distinctive "cliff" in the bag "could be
caused by an operator putting one of the cutting blades in backwards." Id. at
128-29. The expert then personally examined the tool that cut the bags and
observed how a blade might be replaced backwards. Id. at 133. Ultimately,
the expert "concluded that the 'cliffs' in the bags in this case were likely caused
by a backwards blade." Ibid. His conclusion was based, in part, on his
conversation with the plastics engineer. Id. at 129.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the expert's opinion concerning the
"'cliffs' on [the] edges of the bags was inadmissible hearsay from an
A-0938-19T3 34 unidentified person and not a valid basis for expert testimony." Id. at 133. We
disagreed, concluding that the expert had "formulated his own opinion" about
the "cliffs." Ibid. It held that "[t]here is nothing improper about an expert
obtaining information from an outside source, as long as the expert makes an
independent evaluation of the information and is able to explain the basis for
the opinion that he reached." Ibid.
Contrary to the State's contention, our decision in McGuire is plainly
distinguishable from the matter at hand. In that case, the plastics engineer
merely suggested that the expert consider whether the "cliff" in the bag could
have been caused by an improperly placed blade. The expert then tested that
hypothesis completely on his own, using his standard methods. Here, on the
other hand, Sandford employed a completely new and untested machine to
personally examine the bullet fragment and the test bullets, included images
produced by BULLETTRAX in his report, and, as the trial court found, based
his ultimate conclusion, at least in part, on his use of this novel technology,
rather than the usual comparison microscope. Therefore, the State's argument
on this point fails.
Because Sandford relied upon BULLETTRAX in arriving at his expert
opinion, we also agree with the trial court that a Frye hearing was necessary to
determine the reliability of this new technology. For evidence to be admissible
A-0938-19T3 35 under N.J.R.E. 702, "the expert must utilize a technique or analysis with 'a
sufficient scientific basis to produce uniform and reasonably reliable results so
as to contribute materially to the ascertainment of the truth.'" State v. J.R., 227
N.J. 393, 409 (2017) (quoting Kelly, 97 N.J. at 178). "Thus, the test in
criminal cases [is] whether the scientific community generally accepts the
evidence." Harvey, 151 N.J. at 170. To establish general acceptance, "the
party proffering the evidence need not show infallibility of the techni que nor
unanimity of its acceptance in the scientific community." Cassidy, 235 N.J. at
492. "[T]he State's burden is to prove that the . . . test and the interpretation of
its results are non-experimental, demonstrable techniques that the relevant
scientific community widely, but perhaps not unanimously, accepts as
reliable." Harvey, 151 N.J. at 171.
An application of the Frye test at an evidentiary hearing was necessary
in this case because BULLETTRAX is a new, untested device, operated by
Matchpoint, a novel software product. As the trial court found,
"BULLETTRAX is a highly automated technology that does not merely
photograph the bullet's surface, as suggested by the State, but instead digitally
recreates the entire surface area." The parties did not provide the court with
any judicial opinions or authoritative scientific and legal writings
demonstrating the reliability of this machine.
A-0938-19T3 36 In addition, neither Sandford nor Boyle were experts in the science
behind the BULLETTRAX system and, therefore, were unable to address
whether it provided reliable images. In that regard, both witnesses conceded
that BULLETTRAX created some degree of distortion when it "stitched
together" the images of the bullet fragment and the test bullets that Sandford
used to reach his conclusions. The trial court also correctly found that, for
many of these same reasons, "the reliability of Matchpoint" was "[e]qually
unproven at this time."
Under these circumstances, we affirm the trial court's determination that
a Frye hearing was necessary to protect defendant's due process rights and
ensure that the images produced by BULLETTRAX were sufficiently reliable
to be admissible under N.J.R.E. 702.
VI.
Finally, we turn to the trial court's order requiring the State to provide
defendant with "the BULLETTRAX . . . and Matchpoint algorithms" in
advance of the Frye hearing, and the court's ruling that if BULLETTRAX is
found reliable following that hearing, Sandford "may testify that the evidence
bullet in this case is consistent with having been fired from the weapon seized
from . . . defendant[,] but may not opine as to any degree of scientific certainty
or to the exclusion of all other firearms." For the reasons that follow, we
A-0938-19T3 37 vacate each of these directives because we believe they were prematurely
issued.
The trial court ordered the State to produce the BULLETTRAX and
Matchpoint algorithms based solely upon defense counsel's request. While it
is certainly possible that this information might be needed by defendant's
experts to evaluate the reliability of the new technology, the defense did not
present a certification from an expert in support of this claim for disclosure.
Thus, there is currently nothing concrete in the record to support the court's
conclusion that granting defendant "the opportunity to review the algorithms
and elicit testimony concerning" BULLETTRAX is necessary "in order to
completely explore and test the integrity of the images it produces."
Under these circumstances, defendant is required to make a more
definitive showing of his need for this material to provide the court with a
rational basis to order the State to attempt to produce it. In that regard, the
trial court was aware that the algorithms are proprietary information within
UEFT's, rather than the State's, sole possession. While the court was open to
issuing a protective order to attempt to overcome UEFT's reluctance to
disclose this information to the State, the parties did not submit suggested
language to the court to assist it in attempting to craft and issue such an order.
A-0938-19T3 38 Therefore, we vacate the court's order directing the turnover of the
algorithms, and remand the discovery issues to the court for further
consideration. The court must promptly conduct a case management
conference with the parties to determine the most efficient way to proceed to
identify the types of information that must be shared by them in advance of the
Frye hearing. Resolution of discovery issues must be made after a N.J.R.E.
104 hearing to ensure the development of a proper, reviewable record that
supports the court's ultimate decision.
We also hold that the court's order limiting the scope of Sandford's
possible testimony at trial was premature. At this point, the State has not
demonstrated that the BULLETTRAX and Matchpoint technology Sandford
relied upon is sufficiently reliable under Frye to be admissible at trial. If the
court ultimately concludes that the Frye standard has not been met, it is highly
unlikely that Sandford would testify at trial as an expert witness.
On the other hand, if the court concludes that BULLETTRAX satisfies
the Frye test, Sandford's testimony at trial would be based on a completely new
technology. An expert's use of this technology was not addressed by any of
the judicial decisions from other jurisdictions cited by the court in limiting
Sandford's testimony. Those decisions only concerned witnesses who used the
standard comparison microscope. Thus, if the court finds that the Frye
A-0938-19T3 39 standard has been met, Sandford's trial testimony may have a completely
different, and perhaps more solid, basis than that of the experts who had their
testimony limited by a court.
Thus, we conclude that the court's placement of a limitation on
Sandford's testimony constituted an advisory opinion which the court did not
need to render at this stage of the proceedings. See G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway,
199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (noting that courts generally should not "answer
abstract questions or give advisory opinions"). We therefore vacate this
portion of the order. The court may revisit the issue of the scope of Sandford's
trial testimony following the Frye hearing.
VII.
In sum, we affirm the trial court's determination that a Frye hearing must
be held to determine the scientific reliability of the BULLETTRAX and
Matchpoint technology. We vacate the portions of the court's order concerning
discovery of the algorithms, and its ruling on the scope of Sandford's trial
testimony. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed in part; vacated in part; and remanded. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
+
A-0938-19T3 40