Steve Martini - Double Tap

“I didn’t measure recoil,” he says.

“But, since you had a chance to shoot the firearm both with the suppressor, the silencer, mounted on the weapon as well as without it, which way produced the most recoil?”

“Without the suppressor.”

“So there was more kick without the suppressor than there was when the silencer was mounted on the gun?”

“That’s correct.”

“Can you give us an approximation as to how much less?”

“It was noticeable,” he says.

“Isn’t it a fact that there is literature, data, to support the proposition that recoil is reduced by as much as thirty percent through the use of a silencer on a handgun?”

“That sounds about right.”

“Is it true that the silencer, especially on a large handgun, acts as a muzzle brake?”

“Yes.”

“Can you tell the jury what a muzzle brake is?”

“It’s a device that can be applied, attached, to both pistols and rifles that serves to dispel some of the physical forces that produce recoil.”

“Usually attached to the end of the barrel, right?”

“Not always. Sometimes,” he says.

“But in this case the attachment of that silencer to that pistol”-I point to the table where both items are on display in front of the jury-“served not only to suppress the sound of the shots fired but also to reduce recoil, right?”

“Yes.”

“Would the reduction of recoil generally produce more accuracy-”

“Not necessarily.”

“Let me finish my question.”

“Sorry.”

“Would the reduction of recoil generally produce or permit more accuracy in the firing of a second shot that is fired within close proximity to an initial or first shot-say, where the shots are fired within a millisecond of each other?”

He looks at me, thinks about this. “Ah. Yes. That would probably be the case.”

“And it wouldn’t matter whether the shooter was an expert marksman or a novice: the application of that silencer to that weapon by the reduction of recoil would serve to steady and make more accurate the second shot regardless, would it not?”

The question seems to produce a little nervous tic in the witness’s left eye; the lid flickers a couple of times. “Yes. I suppose that’s true.”

“Let me ask you about the two different types of bullets used in this case: the solid lead bullet and the frangible bullet. Were you able to determine that the frangible bullet was actually fired from that gun, the one in evidence, the Mark Twenty-three?” I point toward the table.

“No.”

“So the only bullet that allowed you to make a definitive identification as to the firearm used was the solid lead bullet?”

“That’s correct.”

“And if, as in this case, the killer, the shooter or shooters-”

“Objection: assumes a fact not in evidence.”

“Overruled.” Gilcrest splits the hair and comes down on my side.

“If, as in this case, the perpetrator took the time to collect the spent brass and take it with him or dispose of it so that the police couldn’t find it, as was done here-and if, just assuming, two frangible bullets had been fired instead of a frangible and a solid bullet-it would have been impossible to trace the bullets that killed Madelyn Chapman to that particular weapon, wouldn’t it?”

The witness mulls this over, offers an expression of concession, nodding his head slightly. “That’s. . that’s true.”

“So, by using a solid round, the killer made sure that your laboratory would be able to trace the bullet that killed Madelyn Chapman to that weapon, isn’t that true?”

“No. He took the chance that we would be able to trace the round to that firearm. It was always possible that the lead bullet could have been sufficiently damaged in firing that it would have been unusable for ballistics comparison.”

“Yes, but if he’d used a frangible round instead of the solid round, he would have made sure it couldn’t be connected to that handgun, isn’t that true?”

Grudgingly he nods. “Yes.”

“That’s all I have, thank you.”

“Redirect.” Templeton is off his chair and on his feet. He scrambles to the stool, pulls it out from under the rostrum, and mounts it almost in a single motion.

“Is there any evidence, any ballistic evidence, that the silencer was used during the commission of the murder of Madelyn Chapman?”

“No. Not that I’m aware of.”

“So it’s entirely possible that the handgun in question was used for the commission of this crime without that silencer attached, is that not correct?”

“Yes. That’s possible.”

Templeton has a problem: the noise of the two shots that killed Chapman. If any of the neighbors heard them, the cops would have a more definitive fix on the time of death. They don’t. He goes to work on this.

“Can you tell the jury, how loud is that handgun?” He points to the pistol on the table.

“Suppressed or unsuppressed?”

“Objection: the witness is not a sound and noise expert.”

“I’m not asking for scientific measures,” says Templeton, “only as to within his common experience, having fired the weapon.”

“I’ll allow it,” says Gilcrest.

“Without the silencer, is that handgun, in your opinion, loud?”

“It’s quite loud.”

“Did you have to wear ear protection when you conducted the test firing of the weapon?”

“I did.”

“Do you know-can you tell the jury-in your opinion, would it be possible for shots fired from that pistol inside of a house on the ocean, perhaps with the noise of the surf in the background, to be heard in adjoining houses or on the street?”

“I don’t know.”

“Objection: calls for a conclusion beyond the expertise of this witness.”

“Sustained.”

Templeton fumes, then tries again. “Assuming the shots were fired in rapid succession,” says Templeton, “two of them: would they be distinct as gunshots to someone, say, situated inside another house perhaps a hundred feet away, with several walls in between?”

“Same objection, Your Honor.”

“Your Honor, the witness has fired thousands of test rounds; he has years of experience firing handguns, all kinds of firearms. He knows what they sound like inside of a building and out-and whether two shots fired in rapid succession are likely to be recognized as that: two distinct gunshots. That’s all I’m asking.” Templeton makes it sound like a plea.

“I’ll allow the witness to answer that narrow question,” says the judge. “Would two shots fired in quick succession be distinguishable as gunshots outside a house under the conditions specified by counsel?” Gilcrest has a finger shaking at the witness.

“In my opinion-in my experience-it’s possible that they would not. They would probably sound like muffled pops.”

“Is there a reason for that, within the realm of ballistics?” says Templeton.

“Yes. The fact that the forty-five automatic pistol is subsonic has a dampening effect on the sound. There are two factors affecting noise as regards gunfire, one being muzzle blast and the other the supersonic crack of the bullet as it breaks the sound barrier. The second factor is not present with a forty-five automatic.”

“Thank you,” says Templeton.

“Mr. Madriani,” says Gilcrest. “Anything more?”

“Very briefly, Your Honor.” I take the rostrum.

“Did you examine the bore of the sound suppressor, the silencer, in evidence in this case before you fired your test rounds through it?” I ask the witness.

“I did.”

“And did you find any gunpowder residue inside the bore of the suppressor when you examined it, before you fired it?”

“Yes, I did. There was residue in the bore of the suppressor.”