Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

DIRECT EXAMINATION- MARTY TALONS

Could you please state your full name for the court?
Says name.

Now, what educational background do you have, Mr. Talons?


Studied at night at Penn State for Master’s, during that time worked for the
Gotham Police Department

What did your job entail while working for the Gotham Police Department?
General Crime Scene Investigation. Not as glamorous as one might see on prime
time television. Mostly did behind-the-scenes sort of stuff ranging from
performing analysis on evidence to training young cadets who think they’re such
“hot stuff” and “out to save the world.” You put them in their place.

Upon receiving your Master’s degree, what was your next occupation?
1989 starting delving into more hands-on experience with Spencer Gundfrub and
Associates. This is where you really started to get your feet wet in the fascinating
area of forensic ballistics. That’s when you started having to testify in trials
based on your examinations and expertise.

So exactly how much experience do you have being in a courthouse like this?
You have been qualified as an expert across the country over 60 times, five of
which related to ballistics issues.

Your honor, I would like to now remind the court that Marty Talons has been qualified as
an expert in the fields of ballistics and firearms analysis.

For whom do you testify on behalf of?


Unlike some of your “colleagues,” you testify on the behalf of whomever needs
expert analysis of a crime scene situation. Have testified for private attorneys,
public defenders, district attorneys, law enforcement agencies like the Gotham
P.D., and private individuals like Randi Dagger here today.

Moving on to the case today, when were you first approached regarding the case of the
State of New Jersey v. Randi Dagger?
At the request of the defendant was asked on June 20 of 2005 to give the physical
evidence of the case another look-over, and to produce an independent and
impartial opinion of the said evidence.

What items did you receive that day in regards to the case at hand?
Three items: first was a deformed 9mm bullet, second was a 9mm Glock
Peacemaker, and the third a pistol magazine.
What did you do upon receiving these pieces of evidence?
You prepared a report detailing your examination, findings, and conclusions
regarding the evidence, and attached that to your statement when submitting it to
the court.

Your honor, I ask permission to approach the witness with what has been previously
marked as ___, the expert report of Marty Talons.

What is this report?


As just previously stated, the complete report detailing your findings of this case.

And what is this at the bottom of the page?


My signature, signed on the 29th of June in 2005.

And what does that signature signify?


That everything contained in this document is true to the best of your knowledge,
and that every conclusion in the report is within a reasonable degree of scientific
probability.

Your honor, I now ask that this document now be moved into evidence marked as ___.

What were your findings regarding item number one, the bullet?
It appeared to be a standard Remington brand 9mm bullet, except for the fact that
it was severely damaged and disfigured, with only a few surviving areas of brassy
finish.

How about item number two, the retrieved gun from Randi Dagger’s home?
It was a normal Glock Peacemaker pistol, the type that police officers typically
carry with them.

What, if anything, were you asked to do with these pieces of evidence?


You were asked to simply try and determine if it was possible that the item number
one bullet definitively came from the item number two pistol.

How does an expert such as yourself go about verifying this?


Well, you won’t bore everyone with the finer points of ballistics analysis. Explain
how when the barrel of a gun is made, there are raised areas imprinted on the
inside to increase accuracy. In the manufacturing process there are microscopic
imperfections, scratches if you will, inside the barrel. These flaws are unique to
that gun and only that gun, and can be used to match bullet to handgun.

Was that the case this time?


What you just described to me was an ideal situation. Life is far from ideal, ask
any trial judge. In this case the bullet was too damaged to be able to distinguish
between factory-induced scratches and those made upon impact with the car. The
bullet item number one could have come from any 9mm gun.
Just how many different kinds of 9mm handguns are there?
Get it out of the way that there are two drastically different kinds of handgun the
bullet could have been fired from: pistols and revolvers.

What exactly is the difference between the two?


Pistols are large, bulky, mostly used for rapid fire, and expel the cartridge or
shell of a fired bullet to the right of the gun. Revolvers leave the shell of a bullet
in these “revolving” chambers, and must be manually removed from the gun itself
after a couple of shots.

So, what does that have to do with today’s case?


Given that no bullet casing was recovered from the crime scene, it is your
professional opinion that a revolver was used to fire the murdering bullet, and not
item number two, the pistol retrieved form the premises of Randi Dagger.

To wrap this all up for the court, what were your final conclusions in this case?
That due to the deformities of the bullet it can only be determined that it came
from a 9mm handgun. And given that no cartridge was ever recovered, it is much
more reasonable to say that a revolver was used to kill Guy Grimace, and not the
gun retrieved from Randi Dagger’s home.

Thank you, no further questions your honors.