Paul Greer — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Voir Dire (Recall)
988 linesMR. FERNANDEZ: The State calls Paul Greer.
THE witness, PAUL GREER, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Please have a seat in the witness stand, repeat your name, and then spell your last name for the record.
PAUL GREER: My name is Paul Greer, G-r-e-e-r.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. FERNANDEZ:
MR. FERNANDEZ: Paul, how are you doing today?
PAUL GREER: I'm great, thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Take a moment to unpack yourself.
PAUL GREER: Thank you.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Paul, if you would, please introduce yourself to the jury and tell us a little bit when you graduated high school and where you went for --
PAUL GREER: Sure. My name is Paul Greer. I'm originally from the Upstate of South Carolina. Went to school and graduated high school in 2009. Upon graduating high school I attended the University of South Carolina and received a Bachelor's of Science in biological sciences from the University of South Carolina.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Paul. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to pull that microphone a little closer so we can all hear you.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. All right, Paul, walk us through a little bit about your career. With whom are you currently employed?
PAUL GREER: I'm employed at the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, which is commonly known as SLED.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Tell us a little bit about your professional career. How did you get started at SLED, and what it is that you do there?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. After completing my Bachelor of Science at USC, I began an internship at SLED in the Forensic Services Laboratory. I specifically did that internship with our firearm and tool marks department. I interned there for several months and ultimately achieved a position there in that unit. I began my employment officially at SLED in March of 2014 in the firearms department, where I began training to become a firearms examiner.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, and are you currently employed as a firearms examiner with SLED?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Paul -- Mr. Greer, if you would, walk us through what that required in order to become a firearms examiner.
PAUL GREER: Sure. In order to become a firearms examiner, there's a lot of extensive training on the job that must be conducted. At SLED I began an in-house training program that we refer to as the firearm and tool mark course of instruction. During this time -- again, it was extensive, approximately three years or so -- I assisted other examiners who were qualified on the job. Prepped their cases. I learned how to work those cases. I looked at thousands of fired ammunition components on the microscope and did many comparisons of those. During that time, I also completed multiple written and practical examinations. At the conclusion of that training program, I was given a comprehensive final exam that included some mock casework within our laboratory. I successfully completed all of that training in that mock casework and was able to begin working cases on my own.
MR. FERNANDEZ: In addition to the comprehensive qualifications and testing required to become a forensic examiner, are forensic examiners at SLED also subject to yearly testing as well?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. We do a competency at the conclusion of our training program, but we also participate in proficiency testing each year within an area in our discipline, so that is completed. I completed a proficiency test each year, and that just assures that we're maintaining our competency.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And, Paul, are you a member of any professional organizations?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I am.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And which ones would those be?
PAUL GREER: I'm a member of the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners, which is also known as AFTE.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Have you had any opportunity to attend additional trainings or conferences under the umbrella of firearms and tool mark examination?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Would you please explain a couple of those, or any of those, if you would?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. AFTE hosts an annual conference each year. And AFTE, I might add, is an international organization. It's a group of firearms and tool mark examiners around the world, as well as other scientists and members from academic worlds. We get together each year, and I attend that when I'm able in order to share information and see what's happening within the field of firearm and tool mark examination. I attended several of those conferences, and I've also attended some regional conferences that have been hosted by the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And speaking about the laboratory, is your laboratory accredited?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what is the accreditation it operates under?
PAUL GREER: The SLED laboratory is accredited under ANAB. That is a national organization that follows ISO 17025 standards, and those are international standards. So, our laboratory is operating at -- within the same set of standards as other labs in the United States that are accredited with ANAB, and also those who follow the ISO 17025.
MR. FERNANDEZ: In order to maintain accreditation, are there -- is there an inspection process that ANAB requires?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Explain, if you would, kind of a couple of inspections that are typically required.
PAUL GREER: In order to maintain our accreditation, we have a visit approximately every four years. Auditors come into the laboratory to check our casework, review our files, make sure that we're operating within those standards, and they watch us perform casework -- that's a big, huge component -- and they do this for all of the disciplines within the laboratory. And that audit every four years within that cycle helps to ensure that we are -- we're meeting those standards. Internally at SLED we also have internal audits each year. So, even though the ANAB inspector that comes every four years, we may not see them every year. There's some type of audit being performed within our departments and in our casework each year.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Does the SLED laboratory operate under a policies and procedures guideline for the overall agency?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, we do.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Can you explain a little bit about how that involves the lab?
PAUL GREER: Okay. SLED in general has a large set of policies that we must adhere to. Within the laboratory, each department has a manual that they must follow that gives them information on how to conduct their everyday work and how to perform casework. Additionally, and following the ANAB accreditation, we have a SLED quality manual that is specifically for the laboratory. We must follow that as well, and those are all guidelines to help us within to conduct casework.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And in addition to the SLED quality assurance manual, there is -- would there additionally be a SLED Firearms Department manual that you had to comply with?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. There is a firearms -- excuse me, a firearms manual that we must follow.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Just very briefly, please explain what that involves.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That, again, is just a document that gives us information on how to conduct our day to day casework, what to do with evidence, how we should examine that. It also gives us information into our training program, any type of calibration or measurement references that we need to consult for our equipment that we use. All of that information is contained within that manual that we have to follow and reference.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. If you would, please explain to the jury what firearms identification, generally the subject matter, what that is.
PAUL GREER: Sure. Firearms identification is a discipline in forensic science where our main objective each day is to examine those fired ammunition components. So, imagine a fired cartridge case or a fired bullet, and we're looking at those in order to determine if they were fired by a specific firearm.
MR. FERNANDEZ: How long -- and how long, again, have you -- have you been working in SLED -- in this SLED laboratory?
PAUL GREER: I've been employed in the firearms department at SLED for almost nine years.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Have you had an opportunity to testify in court such as this?
PAUL GREER: I have.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Would that be both state and federal courts?
PAUL GREER: I have testified in state and federal courts, yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Approximately how many times, or do you know how many times?
PAUL GREER: Approximately twenty-seven times, yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Your Honor, at this point the State moves to admit Mr. Greer as a firearms and tool mark examination expert.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, no objection to his qualifications.
JUDGE NEWMAN: He's so qualified.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FERNANDEZ:
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, Mr. Greer, I would like to take a moment to kind of educate the jury a little bit on firearms.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And if you would please, please tell us a little bit about the -- well, first of all, are you familiar with the two kind of cartridge rounds we're going to primarily be talking about today?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And are you familiar with the two kind of firearms we're going to generally be talking about today?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I am.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. If you would, please give us a little -- an intro into firearms, beginning with perhaps shotguns, and tell us what makes that unique type of firearm and how it generally operates.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. In general a firearm is a mechanism that propels projectiles through a combustion of gunpowder. As he was stating, there are several different types of firearms, and one of them is a shotgun. A shotgun, if you imagine, is a long gun typically that is designed to be fired from the shoulder, and that has a smooth bore. And what the bore is, is just the inside of that barrel, so there's no rifling inside that barrel typically. A shotgun is also different than maybe a handgun that you may be familiar with, and it fires shotshells. And a shotshell is a cartridge, if you will, that could be plastic or metal that can contain multiple projectiles or a single projectile.
MR. FERNANDEZ: When you said barrel smooth bore and rifling, would rifling mean sort of the interior of the barrel where the bullet exits is spiraled inside?
PAUL GREER: Correct. That rifling is in barrels in order to give a bullet that's traveling down that barrel its rotary twist and spin so that way it can travel to a target or its destination.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And does that rifling assist in the bullet traveling a straight line continuously?
PAUL GREER: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The rifling spinning the bullet and making it go on, does that allow it to travel in a straight line?
PAUL GREER: Yes. That rifling that's inserted into that barrel, if you'll think of like a quarterback throwing a football, it helps it give it that nice spiral so that it can follow -- travel more efficiently.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And then kind of the opposite of that would be the smooth bore of a shotgun. How does that affect the pellets or the BBs inside the shotgun?
PAUL GREER: So in a typical shotgun, you don't have that rifling that gives it that spin or twist, but that's not the design of the shotgun. So when those pellets, or a slug, or whatever is traveling down the bore of that shotgun, it is just traveling out the barrel based on the combustion from it firing.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And if you would, please describe to us what type of ammunition a shotgun will shoot.
PAUL GREER: Typically you use a shotshell. That can be made of some type of plastic. Typically we see that with some type of metal head. Inside that shotshell there can be multiple projectiles. You hear of pellets. We think of birdshot, buckshot. That's what would be inside of a shotshell. Also in there there may be other components that could be plastic or some type of paper material, and that would be a wad, and those have different jobs within a shotshell. Those can be to protect the pellets, to keep them together as they travel, to provide some type of cushioning between those pellets and the powder. So, they all have different, various purposes within -- inside that shotshell.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Greer, did you bring with you some demonstrative items to kind of just demonstrate generically what you're talking about in shotshells?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Can I see that real quick?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll give these back to you. All right, Mr. Greer, if you would, beginning with the shotshells, you brought some demonstrative exhibits. Is that correct?
PAUL GREER: That's correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: If you would just please hold them up, show them to the jury, and explain what it is that we see -- what we're looking at and what the components are there.
PAUL GREER: Sure. Again, these are just two examples of a shotshell. Here you have a plastic body there of the shell with the metal head. On this end of it, that is the end that's going to be up against the breech face of the firearm, and in the middle you'll see a small circle. That's the primer area, and that's what's going to be struck by a firing pin in a firearm so that it will fire. That's what's going to detonate inside the shotshell to cause it to be fired. On this end, you see it's kinked on this end. This is the end that the projectiles or the pellets that are inside of the shotshell will exit and travel down the barrel of the shotgun.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. All right, Mr. Greer, the second firearm would be -- if you would, talk about -- a little bit what the AR platform is.
PAUL GREER: Sure. An AR platform is something that is commonly seen throughout America. Originally it was designed by Armalite, and it's just a modular platform, and it's a rifle, a semiautomatic rifle in it's normal state, and that's what we have here today.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what would be the more common caliber that you might find on the AR platform?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. Typically what is very common that we see in the laboratory and that you may be more familiar with is it's chambered in 223 Remington caliber or 5.56 NATO, that is a very common caliber for an AR15 type firearm.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what were some of the items that you examined in the case as far as rifle calibers?
PAUL GREER: In this case I received one rifle, and it was chambered in 300 Blackout caliber.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Explain to us what the 300 Blackout round is and maybe how it is similar and/or different from a 556 round.
PAUL GREER: Sure. Again, you may be familiar with a 223 Remington or 5.56 NATO caliber. The 300 Blackout cartridge is sort of similar to that. When that was designed, it was designed so that it could be used with a lot of the original features of an AR15. So, the overall dimensions of those cartridges are very similar, with the exception of a shorter case length and a much heavier or larger bullet.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And 300 Blackout being a relatively -- at least compared to 556 NATO round -- were some of the components interchangeable in an AR platform?
PAUL GREER: It's my understanding that when that 300 Blackout caliber was developed, it was designed so that some of the components from the original AR15 type that were chambered in the 5.56 NATO, or the 223 Remington, could be used with a 300 Blackout.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And it is possible, maybe not ideal, but possible to use a magazine that would be formatted for the 223, 556 round in a 300 Blackout rifle?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I would say it's possible.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And did you bring any 223 or 556, and 300 Blackout rounds with you today for demonstrative purposes?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I have two.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All Right. Would you please identify the two, and tell us what we're looking at and what the similarities and differences would be.
PAUL GREER: Sure. To start off, this is an example of a 223 Remington. This is the one that you may be more familiar with. I will show you now side by side. This is the 300 Blackout, and I'm trying to do this so you can see. You can see that their overall dimensions are a little larger -- excuse me -- or about the same except some -- with the exception of the larger bullet. And I'll give you a little bit of anatomy here of the cartridge. What we would refer to as this item right here is an unfired cartridge. Terminology in our firearms department is very key to us in being accurate in what we do, so when we refer to this as an unfired cartridge, that contains a bullet, which is this portion right here, this copper colored projectile, and that's what's going to travel down the barrel of the firearm towards the target. Again, on this end, just like the shotshell, there's a primer there in the middle. You see the circle object there, and that's what the firing pin is going to strike so that way it can detonate and cause the cartridge to be fired. When it's fired we'll have a cartridge case, which is just the brass colored portion here, and that is the cylindrical component there that holds it all together. It holds the primer, the bullet, and the gunpowder inside of it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Greer.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Permission to approach?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Just for demonstrative purposes, I'm going to put it on the -- Mr. Greer, if you would just pay attention, you have a little video screen there. All right, Mr. Greer, can you see these two bullets on the screen?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I can see the items.
MR. FERNANDEZ: This is not going to work. All right. Can you see them clearly?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I can.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. What's the big black thing on the screen?
PAUL GREER: It appears to be a phone.
MR. FERNANDEZ: In your expertise that's a phone. The two rounds we see there, the top round, can you identify which one that is?
PAUL GREER: The one that is up against the phone there would be the 300 Blackout caliber cartridge.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And then as you said before, the below -- the round below, that would be the 223/556 round?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And seeing the actual projectile, meaning the item that exits the barrel of the rifle, would that be that tip -- the cylindrical tip on the top?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. And I believe, if I remember correctly, both of the those projectiles were copper in color if you can distinguish that on the screen.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know if you mentioned it but I'll ask. Did the -- as compared to each other, does the 55 -- the 300 Blackout have a higher grain typically than the 556?
PAUL GREER: It's possible. The bullets come in different grain weight, so that is a much larger bullet. So, I would expect it to be heavier.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And we're going to hear about the grain weights. Could you explain what that means also?
PAUL GREER: Sure. Grain is a term that we use in firearms, and it's just a unit measurement. So, when we measure our projectiles, we're going to measure those in grains. And just as a common way to relate to that, if you imagine 7,000 grains, that's equivalent to approximately a pound.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. So, measurements and bullets are done in grains basically.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that's what we refer to them.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Going back to shotgun shells very briefly, are there various types of shotgun shells and gauges and calibers?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, there are.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Would you explain a couple of the types that you might commonly find and then some of the calibers so we'll know what we're talking about?
PAUL GREER: Sure. Some of the more common gauges in shotshell -- and gauge is just referring to the size and how we are able to determine what that firearm is chambered in. So, a 12 gauge is something that's very common and that's a very common shotgun that I would expect to encounter. You may have also heard of or be familiar with a 20 gauge; that's another one that may be common. A 410 Bore, which is a type of shotshell as well. Those are some of the more common ones that we would see in our laboratory setting and that you may be familiar with. Again, throughout those there are all different kinds of shotshells loaded with different projectiles -- loaded with birdshot, loaded with buckshot -- and they all serve a purpose within our own respect. But those can have multiple projectiles, hundreds of projectiles. It could have just one large projectile, which we refer to as a slug. So there's lots of options, if you will, within a shotshell.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And although this may be obvious, a buckshot is typically used to hunt what type of game?
PAUL GREER: I'm not hunting often, but I would expect a buckshot could be used for something, you know, as they suggest, a buck. You would expect maybe a larger animal. Again, I'm not a hunter, but that's where I could imagine it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Greer. Before we move on, and speaking about the area of forensic science of firearm examination, is that an area that is subject to peer review?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And could you explain to us what that means? What's the peer review process and why that's important in forensic science?
PAUL GREER: Sure. Within firearm and tool mark examination, this is something that's been around for years. Firearms examiners have been learning about the firearms identification process, building studies, and designs and experiments throughout many years. And part of that process in designing those studies and doing this research within firearm and tool mark, they're going to draft an experiment, conduct an experiment, publish an article on their findings, and during that process there can be a review. There will be a review of the article, of the experiment with other scientists within out field, or other scientists or researchers can examine that and see what was going on during that process and say whether they agree with it and share their comments, and that's part of that peer review process. We as -- and as an AFTE member, I have access to our AFTE journal, where a lot of these peer review articles are published and they're able for other examiners to look at, for other scientists and researchers to look at, and help bolster their opinions and thoughts on firearms identification.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And personally, do you know how many exams you've done, you've conducted?
PAUL GREER: I do not have a number of examinations that I've conducted while at SLED; however, at this point I would say it's somewhere in the thousands.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, Mr. Greer, I'm going to ask you, did you receive a volume of items concerning this case for review?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I did receive several items to examine in this case.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And generally did you have an opportunity -- we're going to go through those items very shortly, but did you have an opportunity in general to review a significant amount of items for identification, possible identification?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Did you prepare a report after conducting these examinations?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did prepare a report.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. I'm going to ask us, if we would, go through a number of items very shortly. Do you have a copy of your report, and is it needed in order to refresh your memory and be able to specifically recall each of the individual items?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I do have a copy and I would appreciate being able to refer to it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, very good, and prior to your testimony today, have you had an opportunity to -- well, first of all, generally when items are submitted, do you know anything about the case?
PAUL GREER: Generally when items were submitted to the SLED laboratory, I do not have information about the case.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Prior to today's testimony, have you familiarized yourself, at least very briefly, with the layout of the scene of the crime?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what -- specifically paying attention to what on that crime scene layout?
PAUL GREER: I reviewed a crime scene layout in relation to where some of the marker numbers were that are listed in my report -- those just reference numbers -- and I reviewed where those were in relation to the crime scene that evening where the two bodies were.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And is that just to assist us when we reference items number X, Y or 1, 2, or 3, it allows us to then use that to testify where that was located?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, it can.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Agent Greer, I'm going to go down the list of items and I would like you to identify the item that was received for me, beginning with Item Numbers 2 through 5, SLED Item 2 through 5.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: On your Items 2 through 5, did you conduct a review of that item?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I did look at SLED Items 2 through 5.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And while I find those items, if you would, please explain how you received items -- in general how you receive items in the lab, and what the condition is before you review them, and then what you do ultimately with that item.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. So as items are submitted to the SLED laboratory, those can come from agencies all over the state to include our own SLED Crime Scene Department. Those items are given assignments for multiple departments depending on what the requesting agency is asking to have completed. We are a full service laboratory, so sometimes the evidence has to travel through to other departments before it arrives to me in the firearms department. Typically if you want something like latent prints or DNA to be processed on those items, it would go there first because when I get that, I may decontaminate it or touch it, and those prints or DNA may not be relevant anymore because you would find my -- me on it. Evidence travels throughout the laboratory to those departments and through our evidence control department. I receive those items either from those analysts or from our evidence control technicians. And when I receive that item and before I begin my examination, I want to make sure that the item is submitted to me in a manner that I can tell that it's not been tampered with. So, we use a lot of heat-sealed pouches, so I'll make sure those are sealed, or a cardboard box, that it's sealed up, and I can tell that there's evidence tape or initials of that sealing examiner prior to me, so that way the evidence has been preserved in a manner that I know no one has altered with it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And just so we're clear -- and thank you, Mr. Greer. Just so we're clear, whether I refer to items -- sometimes I will say Items 2. Does that refer to the items that you received as a SLED designation?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. One other thing about the SLED laboratory. When evidence is submitted to the lab, it receives its own unique lab number that's specific to our laboratory. And it also receives new item numbers, and that's so we can track it throughout laboratory and our analysts throughout the lab can report and identify those clearly.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Greer. I'm going to hand you what's been entered into evidence already as State's Exhibits 63 through 68, and I believe they correlate to Items 2 through 7 on your report. Will you please take a moment to look at these items and let me know if you're familiar with them?
(Break in proceedings.)
PAUL GREER: When we receive these items, I do mark the packaging, and I'm also looking for my heat-sealed pouch, and this is how I package the evidence after I examined it, so I'm just confirming that I see some of that information on these items. Yes, sir, this appears to be what was submitted to the SLED laboratory as Items 2 through 7 and your State's Exhibits 63 through 68.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, and would you have an -- I'll take those from you. Did you have an opportunity to examine these items?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: If you would, please tell us what your findings were for those items.
PAUL GREER: I determined that each of those items, they were all fired S&B --
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, excuse me, Your Honor. I'm going to renew my prior objection to the opinion testimony based upon the hearing we had just for the record.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir. You may continue.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Please continue.
PAUL GREER: I determined that each of those were one fired S&B head stamp 300 Blackout caliber cartridge case, and that was Items 2 through 7. That's what each of those items were.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Greer. The item on the screen in front of you would be what's marked as State's Exhibit 63. Is that representative of the collection of items that you reviewed in that batch?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. 300 Blackout round, do you -- were you able to see the head stamp on it? And I can give you back one of the items. If you would, were you able to identify the head stamp and who the manufacturer of that round was?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I was.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Who was that?
PAUL GREER: The manufacturer of Items 2 through 7 was Sellier and Bellot, and you may hear that referred to as S&B.
MR. FERNANDEZ: 300?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, and head stamped 300 Blackout.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Mr. Greer, I'm handing you what's been marked and entered into evidence already as State's Exhibits 33 and 34 -- 33 and 34, which I believe correlates with 9 and 10 on your report. Would you please take a look at these items and let me know if you recognize them?
(Break in proceedings.)
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Can you please tell us what they are.
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 9, which is State's Exhibit 34, is a fired Federal Premium Double-ought Buck three inch magnum shotshell. And SLED Item 10, which is State's Exhibit 33, is one fired Winchester Drylok Number 2 12 gauge shotshell.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And after your review of the scene, where were items -- your Items 2 through 7 located?
PAUL GREER: After reviewing the crime scene diagram, I was aware of the marker numbers that those were recovered from, and in reviewing that diagram it's my understanding that those Items 2 through 7, the 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases, were located around or near the body of Margaret Murdaugh.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, and I'm referring now to your Items 9, 10, State's 33 and 34. Where were those -- after review of the crime scene photo -- diagram, where were those identified and retrieved from?
PAUL GREER: Those appear to be in or around the storage room area near the kennels.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, and I'm putting these two up on the screen, Mr. Greer. Are these just items that you just testified to having examined?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, they are.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Now, after -- right now we're identifying a number of items. Is it -- would it be fair to say that we're going to go over your results then at the conclusion of the identification?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Referring to item -- State's Exhibit Number 4, your Item Number 22, would you please direct your attention to that?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, I'm handing you what's been marked as -- I'm handing you what's been marked as and entered into evidence as State's Exhibit 4. Please take a look at this firearm. Let me know if you're familiar with it.
PAUL GREER: Ladies and gentlemen, this firearm is unloaded and it's safe for me to handle. I will keep it pointed in a safe direction here. I'm going to look for some of those identifying marks that I placed on this shotgun. Yes, sir, I do recognize this shotgun.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Tell us what that gun is.
PAUL GREER: This shotgun was determined to be one Benelli Model Super Black Eagle 3 semiautomatic shotgun in 12 gauge with a serial number of U573210E17.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Was there anything that accompanied State's Exhibit Number 4?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What was submitted with that?
PAUL GREER: Also submitted with that firearm was an accessory, which was the sling, and one unfired Federal Premium Double-ought Buck three inch 12 gauge shotshell, and one unfired Winchester Super X Game load 16 gauge shotshell.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And I think you just testified that 12 gauge is -- this shotgun is what gauge?
PAUL GREER: That is a 12 gauge shotgun.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And you just mentioned that loaded in it was a 16 gauge. Would you explain what the process was -- is that the proper gauge for that shotgun?
PAUL GREER: No, sir. That -- the unfired ammunition as it was submitted to me was received in another package. I did not remove it from that firearm. However, a 16 gauge would not be correct for use in that firearm.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Did you have to manually remove it from the shotgun?
PAUL GREER: It was already removed when I received it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. I'm handing you what has been marked as State's Exhibit -- and entered into evidence as State's Exhibit 250, SLED Item 8. So Item 8, SLED Item 8 but State's Item 250. Take a moment to review it and let me know if you are aware of what it is.
(Break in proceedings.)
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I recognize this as SLED Item 8.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Did you have an opportunity to examine and review that item?
PAUL GREER: I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What did you determine that it was, or is?
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 8, State's Exhibit Number 250, was determined to be one fired bullet, and that was listed as near tire impression as Marker 8.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And you were able to do further analysis which will give you results to determine its weight?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Very good. So as you testified before, this would be the bullet minus the casing that it originally came in. Is that correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that is just one fired bullet.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And that's what it looks like when it doesn't have the back part on it?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That's just a bullet without any cartridge case attached to it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Mr. Greer, I'm going to direct your attention to State's Exhibit Number 20, SLED Item 14, and this is entered into evidence already. I'm going to hand it to you and ask if you conducted an exam of this item.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. What were the results?
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 14, which was State's Exhibit 20, was determined to be 24 birdshot pellets listed as in front of dog food storage room.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And can you repeat it for my purposes? These are pellets for what?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. 24 birdshot pellets listed as from dog food storage room.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And you testified before you presented what a shotgun shell looks like. Would that be what's inside a shotgun shell ultimately?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That would be an examples of birdshot pellets that would be loaded into a shotgun shell.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Mr. Greer, I'm going to direct your attention to what's been entered into evidence as State's Exhibit 76, SLED Item Number 12. Did you have an opportunity to -- well, first of all let me look at it. Did you have an opportunity to review this item? And I'll have you take a look at it.
(Break in proceedings.)
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Tell us what it is, please.
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 12, State's Exhibit 76, was determined to be one fired bullet listed as from bedding inside dog house.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm going to direct your attention to State's Exhibit 102, SLED Item Number 11. It's already entered in evidence. Please take a look at this item and let me know if you're familiar with its contents.
(Break in proceedings.)
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. This is SLED Item 11, State's Exhibit 102, and that was determined to be one fired bullet jacket fragment, three bullet jacket fragments, and one piece of lead listed as defect in ground gravel, Marker 13.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. All right. I'm going to refer to what's been identified as State's Exhibit 109, SLED Item 137. If you will, please, review this item and let me know if you recognize it and if you performed an examination of it.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. This is SLED Item 137, State's Exhibit 109, and it was determined to be one piece of lead listed as from hair on the Item 92 dress.
MR. FERNANDEZ: At this point the State would move for Number 109 to be admitted into evidence?
JUDGE NEWMAN: What says the defense?
MR. GRIFFIN: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(PIECE OF LEAD MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 109 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Moving on to State's Exhibit 110, which is SLED Items 67 and 68, I'll direct your attention to that, what's been marked for identification purposes as State's Item 110.
MR. GRIFFIN: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(PELLETS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 110 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Mr. Greer, I'm going to show you what's what has been admitted as evidence as 110. If you would, please, take a look at it and let me know if you recognize it and have performed an examination on it.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. State's Exhibit 110 represents two SLED items. SLED Item 6, which I examined, determined to be 48 birdshot pellets listed as from left shoulder and head of Paul Murdaugh at autopsy. And SLED Item 68 was one piece of plastic listed as from left shoulder and head of Paul Murdaugh at autopsy.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And when you say where it's from, that's because that's what was identified on the item that was submitted to your -- to you for review?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That's solely based on how it was logged into our system by the submitting personnel.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. I'm going to refer your attention now to three items -- this will speed up the process a little bit -- State's 111, 112, and 113 marked as identification purposes SLED Items 69, 66, and 104. Go ahead and take a look at those in your items in your report.
(Break in proceedings.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to break for lunch. We will resume in one hour and 15 minutes, 2:45.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
(A lunch break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. You may continue.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FERNANDEZ:
MR. FERNANDEZ: Continuing with items State's Exhibit 11 -- 111, 112, 113.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- I believe right before we broke, I presented counsel and was going to offer it to the witness, and I believe it was without objection and it will be offered into evidence.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Is that correct?
MR. GRIFFIN: Without objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Admitted without objection.
(WADDING MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 111 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PELLETS AND WADDING MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 112 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PELLETS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 113 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Agent -- or Mr. Greer, please review what's been marked as State's Exhibit 111, 112, and 113, which would align with SLED Items 66, 69, and 104. If you would, please let us know if you've had an opportunity to inspect those items and analyze them.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did. State's Exhibit 112 is SLED Item 66, and that was determined to be three fired bullet jacket fragments and seven pieces of lead listed as from Margaret Murdaugh at autopsy. State's Exhibit 11 --
MR. FERNANDEZ: 111?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, excuse me, I apologize. 111 is SLED Item 69, and that is one combination wad listed as from left axilla of Paul Murdaugh at autopsy. And State's Exhibit 113 is SLED Item 104, and that was one birdshot pellets listed as found in Paul Murdaugh's clothing.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. All right, Mr. Greer, I'm going to direct your attention to State's Exhibit 90, SLED Item 31. Did you have an opportunity to inspect this item?
PAUL GREER: I did inspect SLED Item 31.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is this the item you inspected?
PAUL GREER: This firearm is unloaded and safe to handle. Yes, sir, I see my identifying marks as SLED Item 31 on this firearm.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Can you tell us what this is?
PAUL GREER: That was determined to be one Browning Model Auto 5 Light 12 semiautomatic shotgun 12 gauge with serial number 03867NV211.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And did you conduct further examinations on that firearm that we'll discuss in a little bit?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm going show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit -- and entered into evidence State's Exhibit 89, Item 30 on your report. Did you have an opportunity to inspect that firearm?
PAUL GREER: This firearm is also unloaded. Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And how do you know that?
PAUL GREER: When I'm looking at these firearms, we ascribe our evidence, if possible, in multiple location, so I'm looking for those identifying features: that SLED lab number, and that item number, as well as my initials on some of these items that I was able to mark that. So, I see that on this firearm.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, and for purposes of our results that we'll discuss shortly, did you conduct additional testing on that firearm?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm handing you what's been marked and entered into evidence as State's Exhibit 91; that would be your SLED Item Number 32. Tell me if you recognize that firearm and if you, in fact, were the one that received it and conducted examinations on it.
PAUL GREER: This firearm is also unloaded. I'm going to look again for those identifying marks. Yes, sir, I identified this as my SLED Item 32.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And lastly I'll direct your attention to what's been entered into evidence as State's Exhibit 91 -- I'm sorry, State's Exhibit 88 and SLED Item 33. Are you familiar with that item?
PAUL GREER: This firearm is also unloaded. Yes, sir, I am familiar with this item.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is that the item that you conducted tests on?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, this is the SLED Item 33.
MR. FERNANDEZ: If I could direct your attention then to State's Exhibit 210, which would be SLED Item 34, that's been entered into evidence collectively as item -- State's Item 210. Are you familiar with the contents of that evidence package?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I am.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what are they?
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 34, State's Exhibit 210, was determined to be one magazine and 26 unfired Sellier and Bellot 300 Blackout caliber cartridges.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And was SLED Item 34, State's Exhibit 210, included with the rifle we just took a look at?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. It was submitted in the same package as the rifle.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Moving on to State's Exhibit 143 through -- sorry, State's Exhibit 143, 144, 150, and 148 and entered into evidence already, that would be SLED Items 166, 167, 168, and 169?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm handing you what's been marked as those exhibits. Would you please take an opportunity -- a chance to review those and let me know if you're familiar with them and if you had an opportunity to analyze them.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I believe I have seen these items.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Tell us what they are, if you would.
PAUL GREER: Each of these four items are 12 gauge Federal shotshells, and they each all have the markings that are consistent with each other, a Federal Premium Double-ought Buck 3 inch Magnum.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Do your notes indicate where they were located?
PAUL GREER: I have an indication based on the packaging.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. What did the packaging indicate?
PAUL GREER: The packaging for State's Exhibit 150, from what I can tell, it says from red bin on workshop bench. For State's Exhibit 144, says from red bin on workshop bench. State's Exhibit 143 says from red bin on workshop bench. And State's Exhibit 148 also says from red bin on workshop bench.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. I'm now going to hand you what's been previously entered into evidence as State's Exhibits 145, 146, 147, and 149; that would be SLED's Number 162, 163, 164, and 165. Same as before, if you wouldn't mind, please take a look at those and let me know if you are familiar with their contents.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Just tell us what they are.
PAUL GREER: All four of these items are Winchester 12 gauge shotshells, and they all appear to have the same information on the shotshell Drylok 3 inch with the number two.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm going to hand you what's been previously entered into evidence as State's Exhibit 213, SLED Item 45. Please take a look at that piece of evidence and let me know if you are aware of what it is.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. This appears to be a box for ammunition in the 300 Blackout caliber.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And does -- did that box indicate the maker of that 300 Blackout ammunition?
PAUL GREER: It does.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Who is the manufacturer?
PAUL GREER: Sellier and Bellot.
MR. FERNANDEZ: S&B?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. This is State's Exhibit 260, which was previously marked for identification purposes only. State's Exhibit 260 contains SLED Items 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39.
MR. GRIFFIN: No objection Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Admitted without objection.
(CARTRIDGES MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 260 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Greer, I'm handing you what has now been admitted into evidence as State's Exhibit 260. If you would, please take a moment to review those items, and let me know if you are familiar with them.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I am familiar with these items.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what are they?
PAUL GREER: These are SLED items 35 through 39. These were each fired 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases with the head stamp of Sellier and Bellot.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. I'm handing you what's been marked previously as State's Exhibit 261 for identification purposes only which reference SLED Items Numbers 108 to 135 collectively.
MR. GRIFFIN: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(CARTRIDGE CASES MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 261 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Agent, these items are now admitted under State's Exhibit -- as State's Exhibit 261. Please take a moment to review those items and any notes or information you might have on them, and let me know if you're aware of what they are.
(Break in proceedings.)
PAUL GREER: Yes. Container AB was submitted to the laboratory and it is to contain SLED Items 108 through 135. I am familiar with these items, and this package appears to not have been tampered with since I sealed it last, as I see my initials and seal date there at the bottom.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what's inside that package?
PAUL GREER: Inside this package there are 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases, as well as 12 gauge shotshells.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And did you have an opportunity to perform an analysis on these items?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Greer, I'm offering you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 398. That would reference SLED Item 22.4.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And I believe without objection I'll offer it into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: That's correct, no objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(SWAB MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 398 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: If you would, please take a look at that item and cross reference with your report, and let me know if you're familiar with what it is.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. This container contains two SLED items. That's SLED Item 22.4, which is a swab of debris that I took, a reddish/brown debris swab from the right side of the Item 22 receiver.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Which item is 22?
PAUL GREER: Item 22 was the camouflage Benelli Model Super Black Eagle 3 semiautomatic shotgun. And it also contains SLED Item 22.5, which was another swab from that same shotgun, and that was reddish/brown debris swabbed from the left side of the Item 22 receiver above manufacturer information.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And tell us a little bit about the swabs and what you're looking for with that.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. When I receive items of evidence, part of my process in documenting the evidence and opening the evidence is to look to see if there's any foreign or trace material on that item. When I was examining this firearm and opening it for the first time I took note of that, and when I did that I noticed two -- those two areas that I saw reddish/brown debris. In order to preserve that prior to my examination, I swabbed those items so that way they could be collected and maintained.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Mr. Greer, I'm handing you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 399, which references SLED Item 22.7.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The State would offer that into evidence after you identify it, I believe, without objection.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I do recognize this. And this package is still sealed with my initials and seal date. Item 22.7 was the unfired 12 gauge shotshell that was submitted with the Item 22 camouflage Benelli Super Black Eagle 3 shotgun. During my testing I used that submitted ammunition that came with the firearm to test fire the weapon with, and that is represented here as SLED Item 22.7, State's Exhibit 399.
MR. GRIFFIN: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(UNFIRED SHOTSHELLS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 399 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Mr. Greer, before we move on to your analysis and your results, if you would, please tell me a little bit about the firearms identification process and the number of ways that you use to identify whether a firearm shot a particular projectile.
PAUL GREER: Sure. As we were discussing earlier, when I receive evidence into the laboratory and I begin my examination, there's a lot of documentation that has to happen. First, as we're opening the evidence, we're going to, one, make sure to preserve any of that trace of foreign material. We take the -- use photography to document the evidence as we're opening it and to photograph the actual item itself and that trace material, foreign material. We also use a lot of departmental worksheets where I take notes on the firearm, the magazine, the fired component, such as the cartridge case or the bullet, and also any other thing that we need to document throughout the process, or unfired cartridges. We take note of all of that, writing down all of these characteristics that we're seeing on the evidence. In order to do our examination, though, we have to look at these fired ammunition components, these cartridge cases and these fired bullets, and look at their, their class characteristics.
So, we're going to count -- on a bullet we're going to look at its rifling, trying to determine its caliber through weight and measuring it, and counting those number of lands and grooves that comprise that rifling. Like we spoke earlier, that's what gives that bullet that twist. We document that. We may also look at those cartridge cases and look at those that have same class characteristic. That could be the caliber of that cartridge case, the shape of that firing pin, and any overall features. Items that share the same class characteristics we'll compare together. It's kind of like climbing a ladder at this point. Those items that share the same class characteristics, we climb to the next step on that ladder and we compare those items. We're going to look at those fired bullets with each other, those fired cartridge cases with each other, and we're going to look at all that under high magnification. We use a comparison microscope in our laboratory to look at these items.
And basically if you think back to a biology lab that you may have had in school, or some kind of science lab, when you look through a microscope, that's what we're doing, but we're using this comparison microscope to look at two things at one time. And we use -- it uses an ocular bridge so we can look through, like, a set of binoculars to look at these things. We can change the angles that we're looking at all of these tiny little scratches and striations and impressions on the evidence that you can't really see with the naked eye. We're going to look at it under that magnification and compare all of that to each other to help us reach our final goal, which is a conclusion. If we have firearms that are submitted, we'll also have that documented.
Those firearms that have the same class characteristics, for instance if we have a gun that's the same caliber as our fired bullet and it shares the same rifling specifications, then that means we compare that bullet with test fires from the firearm. So, I'll make sure that the firearm is safe to fire, and we'll shoot that firearm within our laboratory. We have several different ways to do that with a water recovery tank and a tunnel that we're able to shoot and recover those test specimens that I physically shot from the firearm. I'll compare those tests specimens with each other to look at how those marks that I was looking for under the microscope that we were talking about, to see how they're reproducing on those test fires, and whether that be a bullet or cartridge case, compare that under the microscope, and then compare that where necessary to the submitted evidence.
After looking at all of that, I reach a conclusion about whether this was fired by this item or not, or whatever that conclusion may be I arrive at that, and I write that conclusion down. At that point in time, another qualified examiner within our firearms department will review the evidence themselves. They'll look at all the submitted evidence and compare that with each other and with those test specimens that I fired and arrive at their own conclusion. If they're in agreement, then they'll sign off on my conclusions, and a report can be drafted, and that's how we get the information out to our customers through our report. At SLED we have the 100 percent micro verification process where everything that we're issuing a conclusion on is reviewed by another examiner. So, that case file, all that documentation that I generate, goes to that examiner or reviewer. It goes -- undergoes a technical review and an administrative review before a report can be released. And in a nutshell, that's how we work each case. There are different parts, there's different items of evidence that we get in each case, but that's a quick overview of how each case is worked, and those -- that process was applied to this case.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Greer. Speaking of the peer review process that goes on in the lab, is that conducted blindly, meaning the person reviewing your report doesn't even know what your findings are?
PAUL GREER: That's correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Could you explain -- so, the subsequent reviewer doesn't know what you decided in your first prime opinion. Is that right?
PAUL GREER: Right. I'll look at the evidence myself, arrive at a conclusion, and the second examiner will look at it and come to their conclusion on their own. If -- once they have arrived at their own conclusion looking at the evidence with their own eyes under the microscope, they'll read my results to see if they're in agreement with what I have determined or not.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And I think you just testified, but was that done in this case?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, it was.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Tell -- before we move on, please tell me what it means for a cartridge casing to be cycled through a weapon. What does that mean?
PAUL GREER: Sure. If you think back when we were looking at the cartridge earlier, an unfired cartridge, when we're going -- when we look at these items under magnification on the microscope, there are several different areas that we're going to be concerned with and looking at for those microscopic scratches and impressions, those little striations. One of those would be a firing pin, and that's what comes through the breech face of the gun to detonate the primer. Also the breech face marks on that primer from the gun. Ejector marks, that's what kicks that cartridge out of the gun, or the cartridge case. Extractor marks, that's what pulls it out of the chamber of the firearm so that can be kicked out. And also chambers marks, and that's on the body of the cartridge case, that cylindrical portion. So when we're looking at evidence, our ultimate goal is to say something was fired by this gun, or they were fired by the same gun.
And we do that, and we can rely on that firing -- those firing pin marks and those breech face marks because that's what struck the primer and caused it to detonate and fire that cartridge. There's other things that we can look at just to single out, like extractor marks and ejector marks and chamber marks of such that we can look at to say that a cartridge has traveled through a gun. For example, if you were to load a magazine, insert it into a semiautomatic firearm, pull the slide back, load that cartridge into the chamber, and then you decide you're not going to shoot, or you need to remove that cartridge for any reason, you would pull back on that slide of the handgun and the cartridge would be extracted out of the chamber and ejected. Through that process there can be marks left on the cartridge. That also would happen when you're firing it, but that's not what detonated that primer and set that off, these ejectors marks, those extractor marks. And that just means that that cartridge we can say has traveled through that firearm at one point in time. That's not to say it was fired by, but the cycling marks that we're seeing as it's cycled through that gun.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So, so, is it accurate to say then that the cycling marks are separate and distinct from the actual firing pin marks when you're reviewing these under a microscope?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. As far as what we're looking at geographically on the cartridge case, those would be in a different location. Where we're looking for those ejector marks or extractor marks or chamber marks, that's not something that we typically would be seeing on the primer area that detonated that cartridge.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. If I could -- beginning with your results, if you could begin with your examination of all of the shotgun shells? So, the actual shells that were retrieved as part of your analysis beginning with items -- SLED Items 9 and 10, which would be State's Item 33 and 34, could you tell me where these items were retrieved? Remind us where these items were retrieved from, first of all.
PAUL GREER: SLED Items 9 and 10, that is State's Exhibit 33 and 34. Item 9 was from Marker 9, and Item 10 was from Marker 10, which is, my understanding, that it was at the feet of storage room.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And I'm going to put these on the ELMO, but if you would, tell us what your analysis of these items revealed.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Excuse me, objection Your Honor. I just renew my earlier objection to these opinions based on this testimony.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Please proceed, Mr. Greer.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. When I compared and examined those two shotshells with each other, I determined that those two shotshells had been fired by the same firearm.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Do you know the make and model of -- or the make and manufacturer of those two weapons? Sorry, projectiles with shells?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right.
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 9 -- yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Item 9 is which item?
PAUL GREER: Item 9 is the red in color shotshell, which is State's Exhibit 34.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
PAUL GREER: That was a Federal Premium Double-ought Buck 3 inch Magnum shotshell, and SLED Item 10 was -- is just the black in color shotshell, State's Exhibit 33, and that is a fired 12 gauge Winchester Drylok Number 2 shotshell.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Now, Mr. Greer, moving on to -- referencing Item 22 collectively --
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- State's Exhibit 399, 22.7 on your report --
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- which will be State's Exhibit 399, did you have an opportunity -- or could you tell us what that is?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That was the unfired 12 gauge shotshell that was submitted originally with the Item 22 shotgun, which is the camouflage color Benelli shotgun.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Would you go ahead and open that package for us, please?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. Do you have scissors or just --
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Remind us again where that item was retrieved from.
PAUL GREER: This item was originally submitted with the Item 22 camouflage Benelli shotgun that was submitted to the laboratory.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Meaning it was actually loaded into the shotgun?
PAUL GREER: When I received it, it was not loaded in the shotgun, but this was an unfired shotshell as it was submitted. This is the shotshell that I test fired in that shotgun.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Greer, can you tell us -- I'll put it on the ELMO -- can you tell us what the make and manufacturer of this item is?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. This is also a 12 gauge Federal shotshell, and on the shotshell itself it also says Federal Premium Double-ought Buck 3 inch Magnum.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm going to direct your attention back to State's Item 34. Are those two items consistent with each other?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. It does appear that they are consistent in construction and their head stamped information.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: If you would since -- let's work through the number of firearms that were identified by you. Did you have an opportunity to test those firearms projectiles retrieved?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What were your results for Item 30, the Mossberg pump action shotgun?
PAUL GREER: In regards the two shotshells?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct.
PAUL GREER: My results after examining that, it was determined that the Item 30 shotgun did not fire the Items 9 and 10 shotshells.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And could you move on to item -- your Item 31, State's Item -- one moment, I'm sorry. And the item you just referenced was State's Item 89, the Mossberg Shotgun, State's Item -- State's Exhibit 90, SLED Item 31. Can you please tell us about that item?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. Based on my examination it was -- I was able to determine that Item 31 was not fired by -- excuse me, that Item 31 did not fire Items 9 and 10.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Concerning State's Exhibit 91, your SLED Item 32, that would be a Benelli Super Black Eagle 2, black in color. Could you tell us the results of that?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. Based on my examination, it was determined that Item 32 did not fire Items 9 and 10.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Item 32 was, however, recovered with a number of rounds in it. Is that correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that is correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what were those rounds?
PAUL GREER: Item 32, the Benelli model Super Black Eagle 2 shotgun, was submitted with two unfired 12 gauge shotshells, Federal and Winchester.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. Did you have an opportunity to compare the shotshells with Item 22, the camouflage colored Benelli Super Black Eagle 3?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. If you would, please tell us your findings concerning Item 22.
PAUL GREER: Sure. When I compared SLED Items 9 and 10 with those test shotshells that I fired through the Item 22 camouflage shotgun, the results of those comparisons were inconclusive. I was unable to determine whether or not Items 9 and 10 were fired by Item 22, or if they'd been fired by another firearm with similar characteristics.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And were you able to eliminate Item, Item Number 33 from this round of testing concerning the shotgun shells?
PAUL GREER: That's correct. The shotgun shells were not fired by the Item 33 rifle.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Moving on to your results -- sorry, moving on to your testing, did you conduct additional testing of 300 Blackout rounds?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And of the cases -- of the ammunition both fired and spent, so shell casings or unfired ammunition, were -- the ones we examined today that were retrieved from the scene, what make and manufacturer were they?
PAUL GREER: The cartridge cases were head stamped with S&B logo and 300 Blackout caliber.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Did you have an opportunity to test fire and examine SLED Item 33, State's Item -- State's Exhibit 88, the 300 Blackout rifle black in color?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, and would you please tell us your results from that examination for that weapon?
PAUL GREER: In regards to test firing the weapon?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. When I examined the Item 33, I test fired it using the Item 34 magazine. That was the magazine that was packaged along side the rifle. During that test firing, the first available cartridge in the magazine, as I inserted the magazine into the firearm, it was fed and chambered into the rifle correctly and as I expected. The cartridge was successfully test fired, and then it extracted and ejected from the rifle again as I expected it to. However, as the firearm cycled, meaning when that bolt was coming back forward to load the next available cartridge in the magazine, it failed to feed that cartridge into the chamber, and I had to manually cycle it to load the next cartridge into the chamber. That issue did not prevent me from test firing the firearm, and no further analysis to determine that cause was conducted.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Referencing your results of SLED Item 128 in your exam, were you able to identify any cartridge casings that would have been fired by Item 33 rifle -- your Item 33, State's Exhibit 90 -- State's Exhibit 88?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I was.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And just to be clear, we're talking about this 300 Blackout rifle, is that correct, that we're talking about, your Item 33?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That is SLED Item 33 that I examined and test fired.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What were you able to identify with the rounds recovered, the 300 Blackout rounds recovered? Please list their item numbers as well.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. So I compared all of the 300 Blackout cartridges that I received, and based on my examinations and comparisons, I was able to determine that SLED Item 38, 109, 110, 121, 126, and 127 were fired by the Item 33 rifle.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And those were the various items that were recovered that we've been through and identified in State's exhibits. Is that correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So, some of them you would say were fired by Item 33.
PAUL GREER: That is correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I know you mentioned before with Item 33 -- or sorry, State's Exhibit 89 -- I'm sorry, State's Exhibit 88, I know you'd mentioned before that it wasn't working properly. Does that inhibit your ability to test it in any way?
PAUL GREER: No, sir. I was able to test fire that firearm and recovered those test specimens that I needed in order to make those comparisons.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Do malfunctions occur in firearms from time to time?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, they can occur.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, but nevertheless you were able to simulate the fire -- you were able to fire the weapon though.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I was able to test fire the weapon and recover those test specimens that I used.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. I'm going to reference SLED Items 2 through 7, 35 through 37, 39, 108, 111 through 120. Do you understand which items I'm referencing?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And how did you compare those -- or how did the analysis go when compared with Item 33, State's Item 88?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. When I compared those SLED -- those items that was Items 2 through 7, 35 through 37, 39, 108, 111 through 120, and 122 through 124, and 128 with each other, and when I compared those with those test specimens that I fired through Item 33, the results of those comparisons were inconclusive. Again, that means I was unable to determine if they had been fired by Item 33, or they had been fired by another firearm or firearms with similar characteristics.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Still on Item 33, State's Item -- State's Exhibit 88, the recovered 300 Blackout rifle, were you able to compare the ejection and extraction marks of various 300 Blackout rounds recovered and casings recovered?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what was your findings concerning some of those items? And please list the items and we will go back and identify as soon as the exhibits are admitted.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. In looking at the mechanism marks on items 111, 114 through 115, 118 through 119, 123, and 128, I was able to determine that those items had all been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the Item 3 rifle -- excuse me, the Item 33 rifle at some previous time.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, Mr. Greer, I'm going to ask you --
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, I'm going to renew my objection to the next opinion that he's about to offer based on prior rulings, just for the record.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir, it's --
MR. GRIFFIN: And my prior arguments and the Court's ruling.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Greer, I'm going to real quick reference from your chart on your list items marked as SLED Items 2 through 7, 35, 36, and 37, and SLED Item 39, and that would be State's Exhibits 63 through 68. If you would, just please verify that I handed you State's Exhibits 63 through 68, and identify if they correlate to Items 2 through 7 on your chart.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. These State's Exhibits 63 through 68 are SLED Items 2 through 7.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And I'm going to show you what's been marked as --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: State's Exhibit 260.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: State's Exhibit 250, which correlates to SLED items 35 through 39, please verify that for me.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. This is State's Exhibit 260, which is a container that is to contain SLED Items 35 through 39.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. SLED Items 2 through 7, State's Exhibit 63 through 68, after review of the crime scene, where were those items -- where were those located?
PAUL GREER: After reviewing the crime scene diagram, it's my understanding that those cartridge cases were at marker numbers that were near or around the body of Margaret Murdaugh.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And those would be 300 Blackout rounds. Is that right?
PAUL GREER: That's correct, they're 300 Blackout caliber.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Or they were spent casings.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. Those are fired cartridge cases.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And State's Exhibit 260, Items 35 through 39, what are those again?
PAUL GREER: Those were all fired 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases head stamped with the S&B logo with the -- and 300 Blackout caliber.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And where were those items recovered?
PAUL GREER: Listed on our submission documents, those were from the ground at side entrance door.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Have you physically been there to the Moselle property?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Are you familiar with the ground at the side entrance door?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I believe so.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is that the side entrance that leads into the pool table and the gun room?
PAUL GREER: Based on my understanding of the scene, yes, sir. I believe that is where those were collected from, near that door that goes into that room.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have 3000 Blackout round casings from -- collected from around Maggie's body, and we have 300 casings collected from the house. Is that correct?
PAUL GREER: That's correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And do we have -- do you have any notes? Did you take any contemporaneous notes on the condition of items -- your Items 35 through 39, those collected at the side entrance?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I do believe so. I'm going to reference my case file here to confirm.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Would referencing your file help you refresh your memory on that matter?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, it would. During my examination when I looked at Items 35 through 39, which were -- those were recovered near that door area, I did note that they were tarnished and weathered in my case file.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Greer, tell us what you found concerning those items.
PAUL GREER: Based on my examination, it was determined that Items 2 through 7, 35 through 37, and 39, have matching mechanism marks, and it was concluded that those items had been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. If I understand it correctly, the items collected right by Maggie had been extracted to -- loaded into, extracted to, and ejected by the same firearm that were identified -- that -- items were picked up by the side of the house.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that is correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Additional items were collected as well, and did you have an opportunity to analyze those?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And identify the SLED item numbers and then we'll identify the State's exhibit numbers.
PAUL GREER: Those were SLED Items Number 108, 113, 116, 117, and 122.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm handing you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 261, which includes various items. And what are they again?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. This is a container that contains multiple 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases and fired 12 gauge shotshells.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And in that -- in that collective bin include 300 Blackout rounds of the items you just listed?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And tell us what your findings were for those items. Where were these collected?
PAUL GREER: Based on the submission documentation, those were collected from areas such as from -- to the left of the shooting chair near field, from a right corner near field, from in front of the shooter's chair, under a table. Would you like me to identify each location?
MR. FERNANDEZ: For those items, have you had an opportunity to review some body worn camera footage in evidence and kind of identify what that actually meant?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What -- and generally when it says left leg and right leg and near the front or the back, what is it talking about?
PAUL GREER: It appears that there's some type of a shooting area that those were collected from.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. What were your findings concerning those items?
PAUL GREER: It was determined that those items, and to include Items 108, 113, 116, 117, and 122, also had the same matching mechanisms marks to conclude that they had been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm as those at the crime scene around Margaret Murdaugh's body, and those several recovered from the home.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So, the items collected around Maggie -- Margaret Murdaugh's body matched the items collected outside the house, which matched items that were collected in the field at the shooting range.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I wasn't able to identify the cartridge cases recovered Items 2 through 7 near the body. I did have matching mechanism marks with several of the items from the area around the home and those in the shooting field, and several of those in the shooting field, to conclude that some of those had been -- or, excuse me, that those had been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Similar reference SLED Item 8, that would be State's Item 250 -- State's Exhibit 250. I'll put it on the screen. What is that item again, remind us, please?
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 8 was one fired bullet determined to be 300 Blackout caliber listed as near tire impression at Marker 8.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Recovered from the scene?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, at Marker 8.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is that a fired projectile?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that is a fired bullet.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is that -- how much does that bullet weigh?
PAUL GREER: According to my notes, when I weighed that projectile it weighed approximately 147.4 grains.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm handing you what's marked as Exhibit 213. Remind us again what that is.
PAUL GREER: State's Exhibit 213 appears to be an ammunition box marked Sellier and Bellot in and 300 Blackout caliber.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What are the gains indicated on that box?
PAUL GREER: On the side of this box it has information about the projectile, and it says 147 grains on the side.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is item -- is State's Exhibit up on the ELMO, is that consistent with a 147 grain projectile?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That bullet appears to be intact. Based on my examination and looking at these fired bullets as a part of an examination, I would say that would be consistent with having -- being 147 grains.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Did you have an opportunity to inspect SLED Item 12?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Tell us your results of that.
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 12 was one fired bullet determined to also be -- most consistent with being 300 Blackout caliber, and it was listed as from bedding inside dog house.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And did you have an opportunity to weigh that projectile?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what was the results of that?
PAUL GREER: When I weighed that projectile, it was approximately 146.8 grains.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is that consistent with the 147 grain unfired ammunition?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I would say that would be consistent with 147 grains.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Agent Greer, lastly I'm going to show you what's been marked as State -- and entered into evidence as State's Exhibit 143, 144, 148, and 150. Can you please remove those collectively and let me know if you are familiar with the make and manufacture of those items?
PAUL GREER: State's Exhibit 143 is a 12 gauge Federal shotshell. It says Federal Premium Double-ought Buck 3 inch Magnum on the shell, on the side of the shell. State's Exhibit 144 is also a 12 gauge Federal shotshell. On the side of it it says Federal Premium Double-ought Buck 3 inch Magnum. State's Exhibit 148 is also a 12 gauge federal shotshell. On the side of it it says Federal Premium Double-ought Buck 3 inch Magnum. And State's Exhibit 150 is also a 12 gauge Federal shotshell with the same information, a Federal Premium Double-ought Buck 3 inch Magnum.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Are all of those four exhibits that you just reviewed of the same manufacture and the same make and model?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. They appear to have the same information and also in their case -- excuse me, in their construction as well.
MR. FERNANDEZ: If I use one for demonstrative purposes, all the rest are the same?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. They appear to be all consistent.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm showing you what you just identified. This would be State's 123. Is this the item you just looked at, Mr. Greer?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm showing you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 34. Remind me again which item that is. SLED Item 9?
PAUL GREER: State's Exhibit 34 was SLED Item 9, that's correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what's the make and model of that?
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 9, State's Exhibit 34, was a fired 12 gauge shotshell with the Federal Premium Double-ought Buck 3 inch Magnum, red in color.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm showing what's been marked as State's Exhibit 399. This would be -- again, where is Item 9 from?
PAUL GREER: Item 9 is listed as from Marker 9. And, again, based on my understanding of the crime scene document, that was near or around the feed room.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what's marked as State's Exhibit 389, SLED Item 22.7, where is that item from?
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 22.7, State's Exhibit 399, was the unfired 12 gauge shotshell that was originally submitted as Item 22 with a camouflage Benelli shotgun.
MR. FERNANDEZ: State's Item 24. And you've already reviewed this, Exhibit 4 for the State, 22 for you. Is that the shotgun that you're referring to?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, this is my Item 22 shotgun.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Camouflage Benelli Super Black Eagle 3. Is that right?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And all of those items are of the same model and manufacturer. Is that correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. They all appear to have the same head stamp information and information on the side of the shell, and their case construction all appears to be consistent.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Reference your Item 10 now. But first let me collectively hand you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 144, State's Exhibits 145, 146, 147, and 149 collectively. Please take them out individually, review them, and let me know if you recall what they are. Make and manufacturer is what I'm interested in.
PAUL GREER: State's Exhibit 145, it's head stamped Winchester 12 gauge with Drylok 3 inch and then 2 on the shell. State's Exhibit 146 is head stamped Winchester 12 gauge; on the shell it says Drylok 3 inch number two. State's Exhibit 147 is head stamped Winchester 12 gauge on the shell, Drylok 3 inch Number 2. And State's Exhibit 149, head stamped Winchester 12 gauge on the shell Drylok 3 inch Number 2.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Do your notes indicate where those items were recovered?
PAUL GREER: Based on the packaging.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Where does the package -- where does the packaging indicate those items were recovered?
PAUL GREER: The packaging for State's Exhibit 145 says from estate box on book shelf in gun room. State's Exhibit 146 says from kent box on book shelf in gun room. State's Exhibit 147 says from nightstand in Paul's room. And State's Exhibit 149 says from estate box on book shelf in gun room.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. I'm going to hand you what's been marked and identified as State's Exhibit 33, SLED Item 10. Where was that located?
PAUL GREER: SLED Item 10, again, was a fired 12 gauge shotshell head stamped Winchester 12 gauge, on the side Drylok 3 inch Number 2. And that was located at Marker 10, which, again, based on my understanding, was near that feed room.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Identify, please, the make and manufacture of that item.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. It was head stamped Winchester 12 gauge, and on the shell it says Drylok 3 inch 2.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is that consistent with the make and manufacturer of all the other items you just reviewed?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Are those all the items that you just reviewed, Mr. Greer?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No further questions from the State.
JUDGE NEWMAN: We'll take a 10 minute break, ladies and gentlemen. Do not discuss the case.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
(A break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Let's bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir. Cross-examination.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GRIFFIN:
MR. GRIFFIN: Good afternoon, Agent Greer.
PAUL GREER: Good afternoon.
MR. GRIFFIN: I just want to see if we can agree on one thing, and that is you're not here to tell this jury that any of the weapons in this room were used, in your opinion, to murder Maggie or Paul, correct?
PAUL GREER: Based on my examination of the evidence I had, was able to identify that there were matching mechanisms marks in items around, it's my understanding, the body of Maggie Murdaugh and other areas of the property. And in regards to the two shotshells in comparison with those shotguns, Items 9 and 10 were inconclusive with the Item 22 shotgun.
MR. GRIFFIN: So that means you cannot, and you did not, and you are not offering opinion that Item 22 shotgun was used to murder Paul Murdaugh, correct?
PAUL GREER: My result was inconclusive, and what that ultimately means is I'm not able to determine that. It's a possibility that it could have been fired by that shotgun, and it also could have been another firearm with similar characteristics.
MR. GRIFFIN: Meaning just equally possible that it wasn't that gun.
PAUL GREER: That's possible.
MR. GRIFFIN: And this 300 Blackout -- we know 300 Blackout was used to murder Maggie Murdaugh, correct?
PAUL GREER: Based on the evidence that I received, I did have several projectiles that were 300 Blackout caliber that -- most consistent with that, as well as several cartridge cases that were head stamped that caliber.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you're not here to tell this jury in your opinion that this 300 Blackout that's laying on the floor here was used to murder Maggie Murdaugh, correct?
PAUL GREER: The results of the comparisons of those cartridge cases, Items 2 through 7, with test fires from that Item 33 rifle were also inconclusive, meaning it's -- I was unable to determine if those cartridge cases were fired by Item 33 or they'd been fired by another firearm.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, how many shot -- how many cartridges were found at the murder scene of 300 Blackouts? Do you remember?
PAUL GREER: Based on my understanding of the crime scene, I believe I was only submitted Items 2 through 7, so that would be six fired 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases. And again, I was not at the scene to recover those. That's just what was submitted to me and based on my understanding of the evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. I'm going to -- I want to stay on the 300 Blackout for a moment. And I'm going to show you what we've marked as Defendant's Exhibit 69.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. GRIFFIN: And you have your file there, but take a look at Defendant's 69 and tell us if you recognize that document as coming from your firearms file -- report, excuse me, extended report.
(Break in proceedings.)
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. This State's Exhibit --
MR. GRIFFIN: Defendant's Exhibit.
PAUL GREER: Excuse me, yes, sir, Defendant's Exhibit 69 does appear to be a copy of two pages from my case file.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, we would move Defendant's Exhibit 69 into evidence, I believe without objection.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Without objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(EXCERPT OF REPORT MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 69 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. GRIFFIN: Doug, this is page number 67 and 68, I'm going to put them up on the screen.
MR. GRIFFIN: And while we're doing that, Agent Greer, is this your worksheet for the 300 Blackout that's here in the courtroom and SLED Item 33 which bears State's Exhibit Number 88?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That would be a copy of my worksheet for SLED Item 33.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and this is the -- this is the item that you're not prepared to tell the jury here that in your opinion was not used to murder Maggie Murdaugh.
PAUL GREER: Based on my examination of the cartridge cases, or several of those cartridge cases that were recovered from all of the locations, the results of those comparisons were inconclusive. I am unable to determine if they were fired by that firearm or by another firearm or firearms with those similar characteristics.
MR. GRIFFIN: But you did test fire this Item 33, correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. GRIFFIN: And on the second page of Exhibit 69 --
MR. GRIFFIN: Doug, if you'll pull up the description of what happened.
MR. GRIFFIN: And if you'll tell the jury what problems you encountered when you test fired Item 33, which is State's Exhibit 88?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. During the test firing, I loaded the magazine with cartridges that was SLED Item 34, and I inserted that into the magazine well of the SLED Item 33, the rifle. I chambered the first available cartridge into the firearm and fired it. That went as expected. The cartridge was fired; it extracted and ejected from that firearm properly. However, as that bolt was going back forward, I would have expected it to pick up the next available cartridge from the magazine. However, it didn't and I had to manually cycle that bolt again to load the next available cartridge from the magazine. That issue did not prevent me from test firing it, and I was able to collect those test specimens that I needed, and no further analysis to determine the cause of that was conducted.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, when you say you had to manually -- it says: As the firearms cycled the next available cartridge and the magazine failed to feed the chamber. So, then you had to manually do it. How do you manually do it?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. On the top of the firearm there's a charging handle. I had to pull back on that charging handle, which in turn pulls that bolt backwards, and when I did that and released it, it was able to then go forward on its own and pick up the next cartridge from that magazine that was inserted into the firearm.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you had to do that every time you fired Exhibit 88. Is that correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I believe so. During my test firing, I did have that phenomena occur.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, is it fair to say Exhibit 88, Item 33, was malfunctioning when you tested it?
PAUL GREER: It did not work as I expected it to. I would have expected it to fire and load that next cartridge as it should. However, when we're test firing these firearms, we're holding them in different ways because we're test firing them in a bullet recovery tank, which at the time was a vertical tank filled with water. So, I had to hold it in kind of a strange position. But through all of my test firing, I did have this situation occur, but again no other testing to determine why that was happening was conducted, and I was able to test fire that gun and collect those test specimens.
MR. GRIFFIN: And is it fair to say you were not able to rapid fire, pull the trigger, pull the trigger, pull the trigger, and shoot bullets in immediate succession?
PAUL GREER: During my testing, I had to manually load that next cartridge in, so it just took the amount of time that it would take me to do that step, if you will. Instead of the firearm performing that function for me, I had to do it, and that's what I did in this case.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and then -- all right. Were you able to get the projectile out of the water tank and compare it to the two projectiles found at the murder scene? Were you -- I don't know if it's Item 8 or -- as part of your analysis, did you compare the projectiles from Item 33 to the projectiles found at the scene?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that is correct. I did collect those test fired bullets from our water tank, and I did compare that where appropriate with the fired projectiles that were submitted.
MR. GRIFFIN: And did you reach any conclusions based upon that projectile comparison?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. GRIFFIN: And what were those conclusions?
PAUL GREER: Based on the observable physical characteristics of Items 8 and 12 -- those are SLED Items 8 and 12 -- I determined those to be most consistent with 300 Blackout caliber. Item 8 may be suitable for identification with other evidence, and Item 12 sustained damage and it was unsuitable for identification with other evidence. And that means that due to the damage that it had sustained, there were no identifying features that I saw under the microscope that I would use for identification purposes. I also received several other projectiles and fragments that I compared to the Item 33 rifle. Due to damage and their size, the caliber -- calibers, Items 11, 66, and 137 could not be determined. They were just too small for me to make any determination about their caliber.
Due to damage and the limited marks of value that I saw on Item 11, specifically the fired bullet jacket fragment and the Item 66 fired bullet jacket fragments, it was concluded that those may or may not be suitable for identification and used and compared later on to the rifle. Based on the no marks of value that were displayed on the Item 11 bullet jacket fragments, Item 11 piece of lead, Item 66 piece of lead, I determined those were unsuitable. So again, due to there being no marks of value for me to compare, I was unable to compare those with those test bullets. Item 137 bore some type of striated marking; however, I was able to determine the origin of those marks and use those for an identification purpose, and it was determined that it was also unsuitable. Lastly, the three items that I did compare with those test specimens that fired from those rifles, which were Item 8, the Item 11 fired bullet jacket fragment, and the Item 66 fired bullet jacket fragments, the results of those comparisons were also inconclusive with each other and with those test specimens. And that was due to damage and just insufficient markings for us to base our opinion on. It could not be determined where -- whether those items were fired by Item 33 or by another firearm or firearms with similar characteristics.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, Exhibit 250 is the projectile that was found by Marker 8, I believe. Confirm that for me, please, sir.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. GRIFFIN: Is that right?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that's correct. State's Exhibit 250 was SLED Item 8 near tire impression at Marker 8, that's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And I believe you just, if you read from your report, told the jury that you couldn't make any conclusions about the projectile seized at the scene from the projectiles fired in the water tank from this 300 Blackout laying on the floor here. Is that right?
PAUL GREER: That's correct. The results of those comparisons were inconclusive, so I'm unable to determine if Item 8 was fired by the rifle or by another firearm with similar rifling characteristics.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, aren't the rifling marks on a projectile as it goes through the barrel more reliable when making firearm identifications than most any other tool marks that you rely upon?
PAUL GREER: I wouldn't say they're more reliable. We do rely on the rifling in that barrel to mark those projectiles, and that's what gives those markings on the -- or puts those markings on those bullets, so we're able to look at them and do a firearms identification examination on them. Tools, firearms, all mark evidence, again, I was unable to do that in this case, and my results were inconclusive. I mean, that's due to the damage that these may have sustained and to just insufficient markings that were on the bullet when I looked at it. There was not enough of those markings on there for me to determine if they were fired by Item 33.
MR. GRIFFIN: But Item 8, Exhibit 250 there, do you recall whether there was human organic matter on that projectile when it was recovered?
PAUL GREER: Let me refer to my notes. I don't have documented in my notes that there was any foreign material or trace on it as I received it.
MR. GRIFFIN: But we know that that projectile was recovered at the murder scene at Marker 8, is that right, near the tire?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. Near the tire impression at Marker 8, that's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you made comparisons of projectiles -- excuse me, of shell cartridges, the back end of the full bullet that were collected at the shooting house of the property at Moselle, did you not? I don't have the numbers, but we went through them a moment ago, you did. Do you remember -- well, let me ask you to take a look at the projectiles that were found. I believe they're items -- they're items 108 through 125. I'm not sure what their State exhibit numbers are. But if you'll look at 108 through 125 in your report, those are spent 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases?
PAUL GREER: SLED Items 108 through 125 was determined all to be fired 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases.
MR. GRIFFIN: And in your report, it references left of shooting chair near field, right front corner, et cetera. You said you don't know, but -- well, are you aware those were collected at a gun house at a firing range on the property?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. And let -- I'm going to back up. I misspoke earlier. It's 108 through 124 are the 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases. But based on my understanding of everything, yeah, there was some type of shooting field or stand that I believe those were collected from, and that kind of seems to coincide with the item description, which is what I'm familiar with.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and were you aware that when you're sitting in a shooting house and you're target practicing that there was a earthen berm that the shots were fired into?
PAUL GREER: No, sir, I've never seen this area.
MR. GRIFFIN: Would it have been helpful to your analysis if the investigators had dug out items from that earthen berm, the projectiles, such as what's sitting in front of you as State's Exhibit 250?
PAUL GREER: We're able to look at bullets that are submitted. We don't have any type of restraint. It may have been helpful. Bullets, as we've seen here, come to us in all shapes and sizes due to their damage that may have -- they may have sustained, so I'm unable to really answer that question without seeing the evidence and determining if it could be helpful.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. I want to ask you a little bit more about the conclusions that you reached as documented in your report, and I'm particularly focused on Item 128, and I'm still talking about the Buster's 300 Blackout that's laying on the floor here in the courtroom. And just so we're clear, there were items, the cartridges that we talked about, the back end of the bullet, that you were able to conclude that they were fired, they were fired by this gun, right?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I was able to determine in looking at the totality of the marks on those cartridge cases that there were items submitted to me had been fired by that firearm.
MR. GRIFFIN: And your conclusion that, that they had been fired by this gun, and we're talking about the cartridges. One is Cartridge 38, which is up by the residence, correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, SLED Item 38, that's my understanding. And it was submitted as being recovered from near a door.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well -- and that's the door that you testified that you saw when you went on the property.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I believe so. That's my understanding.
MR. GRIFFIN: And so -- it's been a long week, two weeks, but there was a SLED agent early in the case who had body cams going around picking up spent shell cartridges adjacent to that door, and you believe this is one of those, correct?
PAUL GREER: That's my understanding, that those items came from the area outside that gun room door.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you concluded that Item 38, along with some other items found at the shooting house, which would be -- well, 109 to 110, you concluded -- and where were 109 and 110 found -- yeah, that's the shooting range, correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. As submitted to the lab and collected Item 109 was collected from right front corner near field, and Item 110 was in front of shooter's chair under table near field.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and so one spent cartridge found next to the door up at the house -- main residence at Moselle, and then you've got five are found at the shooting range that you say in your opinion were fired by this gun.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that is my opinion.
MR. GRIFFIN: But then you've also, also matched other cartridges, according to your report, Items 111, 114, 115, 18, 19, 123, and it says 128, in the report that you say were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from this rifle.
PAUL GREER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: But you don't say they were fired from this rifle.
PAUL GREER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: But they were spent shell casings found at the shooting range, correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. And those were fired cartridge cases. In its just plain term, they had been fired. When I'm looking at the totality of all of these markings, again, we go back to those -- those five areas that we're really going to look at, the marks that I saw that were in agreement that I made that conclusion and based my opinion on, where those ejector, or lug and extractor marks, and that's not what detonated that primer, so that's the difference here. So, we know those marks can occur when that cartridge or fired cartridge case is cycling through there, but that's not what detonated that cartridge, and that's the difference in that result, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, let's look at it from the other side of the coin. So, you're saying the breech marks on a primer where the firing pin at the primer did not match up items -- rifle 33 -- that the breech marks on the firing pin didn't match up on these spent cartridges 111, 114, 15, 118, 119, 123, and 128.
PAUL GREER: No, sir. When I -- I did compare all of these cartridge cases to each other and with those test cartridge cases fired from it. Those items, 111, 114, 115, 118, 119, 123, and 128, due to insufficient corresponding markings on those -- on that primer and on those breech face marks, I was unable to determine if they were all fired by Item 33 or by another firearm or firearms with similar characteristics. I did examine those and the results of those comparisons were inconclusive.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, you're saying you didn't -- you're not telling the jury they don't match. It's just you couldn't match them. They're inconclusive.
PAUL GREER: My results of those comparisons were inconclusive, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and then you also in your report reached the same -- you conclude that it's inconclusive on whether Item 33, State's Exhibit 88 -- are you saying it's inconclusive whether Item 33, Exhibit 88, fired 2 through 7?
PAUL GREER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Are you saying it's inconclusive as to whether Item 33, which is Exhibit State's 88, at some point in time loaded and ejected -- extracted from Item 33?
PAUL GREER: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, we just talked about there was a difference between firing and then cycling and extracting tool marks.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Did you look at -- did you look at State's Exhibit 88 to see if the extraction marks matched up to Items 2 through 7?
PAUL GREER: Based on the evidence that I received, I was able to determine that Items 2 through 7 had those matching mechanism marks with Items 35 through 37, 39, 108, 113, 116 through 117, and 122, to conclude that those items had been loaded into and extracted into --
MR. GRIFFIN: Sorry, about that.
PAUL GREER: -- from the same firearm at some previous time.
MR. GRIFFIN: But you can't identify the firearm -- the firing -- the firearm, the gun.
PAUL GREER: Correct. In terms of being fired by, I was able to determine that several items had been fired by that rifle, and the results of those comparisons with the other items, SLED Items 2 through 7, 35 through 37, 39, 108, 111 through 120, 122 through 124, and 128, those comparisons with each other and the test cartridge cases fired by the Item 33 rifle were inconclusive.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, let's see if I can understand what you're talking about with regard to your conclusions on that Items 2 through 7, which were shell casings found near Maggie's body, and other spent cartridges found around the Moselle house and at the shooting range. You conclude that they were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time.
PAUL GREER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And for those, I guess we have the same issue. You looked at the primer, the breech marks on the primer, and you couldn't make any conclusions on those, correct?
PAUL GREER: When I looked at the primer area where those breech face and firing pin impressions are, the results of including that in a fired by result were inconclusive. And that is the results for Items 2 through 7 and 35 through 37, 39, 108, 111 through 120, 122 through 124, and 128.
MR. GRIFFIN: And, again, aren't the breech marks in the firing pin, aren't those more reliable than extractor marks when you're doing your analysis?
PAUL GREER: During the marking of these specimens, if you will, through firing, the machine processed to create those firearms, we see tool marks on fired cartridge cases and fired bullets from multiple different processes. I can't say that one is more reliable to mark than the other. It's all due to the machine processing. Also due to the individual wear and tear of that firearm through use of it in repetitive use or abuse of the firearm, that can also add to the markings in each of those locations that we're looking at. Whether it be something from the breech face from the firing pin, those extractors and ejectors, or even the rifling in the barrel, all of those variables can play into those markings and how we see those and how they reproduce on our evidence, and how individual they are to each other.
MR. GRIFFIN: That does brings me to another point. Isn't your opinion based upon the conclusion that every 300 Blackout manufactured in the world, whether it was put together by John Bedingfield or mass assembled at Palmetto State Armory or anywhere in the world, that each one when they cycle a bullet through and eject, it will produce its own unique, like no other in the world, some unique tool mark? Isn't that what your opinion is based on?
PAUL GREER: Again, during the manufacturing of these components --
MR. GRIFFIN: Is that a yes or no?
PAUL GREER: I would like to explain it a little more.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, can I get a yes or no and then an explanation?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Your Honor, I'm objecting. He can answer the question.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Restate the question.
MR. GRIFFIN: Isn't your opinion based upon the presumption, or the basis of your opinion is that every 300 Blackout manufactured in the world produces its own unique set of tool marks when it cycles a bullet through? Yes or no.
PAUL GREER: I would like to answer that with a little bit of an explanation if possible.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, I would appreciate a yes or no and he can explain all day long.
JUDGE NEWMAN: If you can answer yes or no you must answer yes or no, then explain.
PAUL GREER: Can you repeat the question one more time? I apologize.
MR. GRIFFIN: Isn't your opinion in this case about the shell cartridges being fired from the same 300 Blackout, isn't that based upon your presumption that each 300 Blackout manufacturer in the world makes unique tool marks when it cycles a bullet and ejects it?
PAUL GREER: It's hard to say -- I have not looked at every 300 Blackout that's in the world, so it's hard to answer that question. But again, based on my knowledge of that process and how they're made, I'm able to support my answer without answering it in a yes or no manner, I suppose.
MR. GRIFFIN: But you're saying you found shells here, shells -- cartridges here, cartridges there, cartridges at the murder scene, and they all have very -- and not all of the marks are identical, but enough marks are close enough to being identical, and in your opinion they were fired by one weapon in the world.
PAUL GREER: It's my understand that those had all been cycled through the same firearm at one point in time, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: But not fired by the same firearm.
PAUL GREER: No, sir, that's not what my conclusions say. But as far as being fired by that firearm, or by the same gun, those results are inconclusive.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, that means that the markings on the breech, because they were all fired -- they all have a fire pin hitting the primer and you call that a breech mark, correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. Those are breech face markings that we would see on the primer.
MR. GRIFFIN: And they were dissimilar to similarities between those where you couldn't reach a conclusion.
PAUL GREER: That's correct. Those shared, again, those same class characteristics. So, we were -- we compared those to each other. Based on our comparisons, that's correct, there were not enough -- there was not enough agreement, there was insufficient agreement there for me to reach a conclusion based on my training and experience in looking at all of these cartridge cases that I can say that they were fired by the same firearm, and that's how we arrived at that conclusion.
MR. GRIFFIN: And can you say when those tool markings were made on the -- or when the -- scratch that. Is there any way to determine -- for you to determine when the shell casings, cartridges, were cycled and ejected in this one firearm that's unique to all others in the world?
PAUL GREER: I could not state when those were fired or when those were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from a firearm, no, sir. I could not put a timestamp, if you will, on that, no, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you can't say whether it was a 300 Blackout assembled in 2016 and given for a Christmas gift, or if it was a replacement given in 2017 or 2018? I mean, you don't know what year the gun was that cycled and ejected --
PAUL GREER: That's correct. I do not have knowledge on the year of manufacture of these firearms.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Now, let's move on to the shotguns. And you were -- let's clear a few things up. You were shown a lot of items that were taken under fired shotshells, and this is 12 gauge. I'm going to show you Exhibit 143, 144, 145, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, all the way to 50. I'm not going to ask you to take these out, but I want you to take a look at all of those and tell me when those were seized or taken into evidence in this case.
(Break in proceedings.)
PAUL GREER: I do see a date on the packaging. Some of these packages ripped right through it -- State's 9/13/21.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and so you understand that as June, July, July, August, three month after these murders, correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That -- September 13th will be several months after the murders, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that those were seized at different places around the property?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. According to the information here, it appears they were from different locations that -- where they were collected from, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And I guess you don't know whether -- I mean, the property at Moselle was open to Alex Murdaugh from June until September as far as you know, right?
PAUL GREER: I have no knowledge of that, no, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And if he had the mind to, he could go out and remove every shotgun shell on the whole property, right?
PAUL GREER: I have no knowledge of how the scene was maintained.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, it would appear that no one removed any shotgun shells since you have them there in your lap, right?
PAUL GREER: It does appear that these were collected from these areas listed on the package on September -- or I assume September 13th as it's dated and labeled by the person who collected these.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. I show you Exhibit 63 and -- what I've marked as Exhibit 63 and 64. I believe they're pages 51 and 55 in the report. And will you just confirm this for me 63 and 64 are pages 51 and 55 from your report?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I do recognize Defendant's Exhibit 63. It appears to be a copy of an item 10 worksheet for the fired shotshell. And Defendant's Exhibit 64 appears to be a copy of my worksheet for SLED Item 14, which were 24 birdshot pellets.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, I would like to introduce into evidence Defendant's 63 and 64 at this time.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(EXCERPT OF REPORT MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 63 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(EXCERPT OF REPORT MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 64 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. GRIFFIN: And just, Doug, if would you, pull up 63, which is page 51 of the report.
MR. GRIFFIN: And, Agent Greer, will you tell the jury what this is?
PAUL GREER: Yes. This is just a copy of one of our standard worksheets that we use to document evidence in the laboratory. So, this is an ammunition and cartridge case worksheet, which is why I utilized it when I was documenting the Item 10 fired shotshell, and this contains my notes that I took on that item.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and just so that we're clear, are we talking about Exhibit 33? This is the black colored shotshell that was found in the feed room where Paul Murdaugh was murdered.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that is correct. State's Exhibit 33 is the item that we're discussing.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you have a name under notes that says -- under shotshell says Drylok 3 inch 2. Do you see that?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. GRIFFIN: Do you see that, Doug? Can you highlight that? Thank you.
MR. GRIFFIN: And, again, the exhibit there that -- and that's what you're talking about, right?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And number 2 is the size of the pellets?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. That would refer to the size of the pellets or birdshot that was -- that we would believe to have been loaded into that cartridge, or that shotshell, excuse me.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then if you'll go to Exhibit 64, page 55, Doug.
MR. GRIFFIN: And it's 55 in your report, Agent Greer. And are these the pellets that were provided to you to analyze, the number 2 size pellets?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. SLED Item 14 I determined to be 24 birdshot pellets, and those were listed as being from dog food storage room.
MR. GRIFFIN: And if you'll look under the caliber, it says number 2 and it says steel. These were steel pellets, were they not?
PAUL GREER: Based on my examination and based on my observation yes, sir, they were magnetic, so that would provide that they had some steel in them, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And birdshot can either be steel or lead, I suspect. Maybe there's a third kind?
PAUL GREER: There can be multiple different metals used in making pellets. Lead is one; steel is one. There's -- there are also other metals that can be used in making pellets, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Have you analyzed any of the Winchester Dryloks that were seized in September of 2021 to see whether they're steel or lead?
PAUL GREER: No, sir. I have not analyzed their contents.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, here you've got Exhibit 64. You've got grain weight, and I want you to explain what you're referring to. I guess I needed -- I'm missing a page for that. So, if you'll look at your page 54 in your file because I -- it says continued from weight, and I guess that's on page 54. Is that right?
PAUL GREER: No, sir. That's just referencing from the category that's kind of at the top portion of page.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
PAUL GREER: I just continued my thoughts down below.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, so help me out here. You say there's five pellets weighed 3.4 grams, and then eighteen pellets only weighed 3.6 grams. How does that work?
PAUL GREER: I weighed each of those pellets individually, and again, we're weighing in grains, and when I weighed those on our scale, that is what I documented. Five of them weighed 3.4, and that should be apiece, eighteen of them each weighed 3.6 grains, and one pellet weighed 3.8 grains.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
PAUL GREER: So, the total of them altogether was approximately 86.4 grains.
MR. GRIFFIN: Great. Thank you for explaining that. You also weighed the grains of the 300 Blackout projectiles, and you don't have that in front of us right here, but did you not weigh the grains there?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. GRIFFIN: And if you've got it, can you tell us what they were? I have my notes here. I believe you said 147 grains, State's Exhibit 50 (sic), which is your Item 8 on your report?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. When I weighed SLED Item 8, which is one fired bullet, it was approximately 147.4 grains.
MR. GRIFFIN: And are you familiar with how 300 Blackout ammunition is sold, what weight classes there are?
PAUL GREER: I don't know all of the different weights that are within that caliber, no, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Did you know there's, like, a subsonic and then supersonic?
PAUL GREER: Again, I don't know everything about that caliber. There are various weights that bullets are sold in for each caliber, so I would not be surprised at other grain weights, but I don't know all of them off the top of my head today.
MR. GRIFFIN: So as far as you know, the only weight you could ever get is 147 grains, right?
PAUL GREER: Of -- when I weighed these items, Item 8 and Item 12, they weighed approximately 147.
MR. GRIFFIN: You mentioned in your testimony that Item 32, which is Exhibit 91, had a Winchester and a Federal 12 gauge shotgun shells in here. Do you remember that?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. They did have two unfired 12 gauge shotshells submitted with it, that's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: But you did more than that when you testified shortly ago. You said one was a Winchester and one was a Federal, I believe.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. One is a Federal Premium Heavyweight TSS, and one is a 12 gauge Winchester Long Beard XR, I believe.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. The Winchester is not a Drylok, correct?
PAUL GREER: No, sir. The markings on that shell said a Long Beard XR.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and the Winchester found at the murder scene is a Drylok, correct?
PAUL GREER: The Item 10 shotshell, which was recovered from Marker 10, which I do believe from my understanding was around the body of Margaret Murdaugh, was a Winchester 12 gauge shell, and it says Drylok on it, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, and then Item 22, which is the gun that Alex Murdaugh -- Murdaugh was holding or was leaning up against his Suburban when Deputy Daniel Greene arrived, that was, did you understand, loaded with a 12 gauge and a 16 gauge shell, correct?
PAUL GREER: When I received it, it was unloaded, but I did receive a 12 gauge shell and a 16 gauge shell, that's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And if you fire a 16 gauge shell in a 12 gauge shotgun, what's likely to happen?
PAUL GREER: That's something that I have not done, so I'm unable to answer that question.
MR. GRIFFIN: Is it dangerous to do such a thing?
PAUL GREER: As a firearms examiner, I would recommend shooting the ammo that your firearm is chambered for. I can't predict what would happen if you shot that shotshell or attempted to.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right. You spoke of this review process at SLED with regard to your tool mark analysis, and you said you do your analysis, you look at things under a microscope, and you type up a report.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. I look at the evidence, reach a conclusion, and write or type those conclusions, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then a reviewer, someone -- and in this case what was the name, initials CW?
PAUL GREER: The reviewer was Chad Smith, another examiner within our department.
MR. GRIFFIN: Is he on the same level to review at SLED?
PAUL GREER: He is also an examiner. I don't know his classification, but he has been employed in the department longer than I have completing firearms examinations.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then he looks at it, but does he prepare an independent report and then flips the two over and see if they match, or does he just take a look at it, come up with his thoughts, and then look at your document to see if he agrees with it?
PAUL GREER: He does not prepare an independent report, no. He does look at the evidence and arrive at those conclusions, and then he would read my results. If he agrees with them, then he will sign off on those conclusion. If he disagrees with them, then there's also a procedure for that to, to happen.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, you mentioned that in order to make an identification or match or -- you have to have a certain number of similar or -- is it similar or identical characteristics?
PAUL GREER: In order to make an identification, we want to see sufficient agreement between the individual characteristics. There's not a certain number that I use, as we use a series -- or excuse me, a method called pattern matching. We're look at under the microscope all of these tiny striations and impressions, and looking at the surface contours of those two tool marks with each other, and we're looking at those individual peaks and ridges and comparing those under high magnification in order to make an identification. And based on that -- through our training and experience at doing this job, we look at thousands of comparisons, and -- excuse me, conduct thousands of comparisons. During that time, we look at things that match each other that we know have been fired from the same gun or made by the same tool, and we look at things that have been fired by separate guns and see if there's any agreement or disagreement. And we look at thousands of these cartridge cases and bullets and tool marks in order to learn what that sufficient agreement is to make our identification.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and you gave the jury an analogy like a ladder, and then you have to get up so many steps as you reach -- the first step, I guess, would be a rifle or shotgun, right? And then the second step would be the caliber of rifle, if we're talking about a rifle, and you keep going up the ladder.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. We're going to look at those class characteristics. So, we're going to determine if, you know, one, if they are the same caliber. Do they share the same rifling specifications if they're a fired bullet? If they are, then we can compare those. If -- for instance, if a bullet has five lands and grooves and it's going to the right, then we compare that to another bullet that has six lands and grooves and it's going to the left, then we know those did not come out of the same barrel, so there's no need to do any type of comparison there. However, if we look at two that have those same lands and grooves, those five lands and grooves and they're all going to the right and they're the same caliber, then we'll go up that ladder, if you will, and compare those individual characteristics to see if they were fired by the same firearm and all.
MR. GRIFFIN: Tell this jury how many steps of that ladder you have to go up before you can make an identification.
PAUL GREER: As far as making an identification, it's based on the marks that -- what we've seen under the microscope. When we're looking at all of these marks, we want to see that sufficient agreement. Again, we want to see enough agreement so that what is there is better than anything -- any agreement that we've seen in tool marks that have been created by different tools. And that's a learned-on-the- job doing this, doing practicals that I did in training, looking at thousands of comparisons of things that I've test fired that I know are from the same gun, looking at things that I have test fired from different guns and looking at that. It's also done through studies that I participated in training, and looking at things that help us know what that sufficient agreement is within all of those features in looking at the totality of those markings. So, we're not going to base our opinion just on one little mark. We're going to look at the entire surface area of that bullet, the entire surface area of that cartridge case in order to make our conclusion. We're not -- we're not looking at one little mark and making an identification. We have to think of the totality of all the markings that we see under the microscope.
MR. GRIFFIN: So the short answer to my question, there is no set number of steps on the ladder you have to reach before you can make your decision.
PAUL GREER: We use a pattern -- excuse me, a method of pattern matching, again, and that's how we do it. And that's a widely accepted method throughout all firearms examiners in the United States and the world, really. That's what we've been using for years to complete firearms identification, and that's what's been widely accepted, looking at these patterns and comparing them in order to make our identification and reach our conclusion.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, now you say it's been widely accepted, but isn't it true that your field of expertise has come under criticism by the scientific community?
PAUL GREER: There has been criticism. But, again, there's been research completed to, to support firearms identification, if you will.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, I mean, the National Academy of Scientists issued a report and it was pretty critical of the objectivity of your work, that it is more subjective because you don't have a set number of ladders, rings on a ladder you've got to reach. It's based on your experience, your training, and your opinion, but that there's no objective criteria by which to measure whether something matches or not. Isn't that -- you're aware of that criticism by the National Academy of Sciences, right?
PAUL GREER: I'm aware of some of the criticism, yes, sir. However, the process of making the identification is subjective in nature, but it's based on some objective data that we're looking at. So there's, again, lots of information that we are looking at. Those -- the contours of those tool marks, the individual peaks and ridges of those tool marks, in looking at it, it's not just look to see, like, if that -- is this a match that looks good. We're really looking under high magnification at all of these features to see what agreement or disagreement that we can determine. And again, that's based on some objectivity, you know, of how we arrived to that situation.
MR. GRIFFIN: But you agree that your chosen field is part art as much as science, right?
PAUL GREER: Our field is an applied science really. We do use lighting and angles to look at these features under the microscope, and it's important to know how to move those items around and move those lighting and those different stages on our microscope in order to see some of these markings. It can be difficult to do. And there is a special technique that, you know, you have to learn in looking at this in doing it and using that microscope to really become familiar and efficient.
MR. GRIFFIN: Did you agree with me previously in this courtroom under oath that this profession you're in is part art?
PAUL GREER: There is some art to it, and that's just the lighting thing. For example, you know, we have to look at that and we have to use that oblique lighting in order to make some of those striations show up. Again, these are tiny little marks that we're looking at that we're looking at under magnification. But the field itself is not art, it's an applied science, and we're using scientific processes to reach these conclusions -- excuse me, these conclusions with years of research to support it.
MR. GRIFFIN: You first examined -- you first examined Item 22 back in June of 2021, correct?
PAUL GREER: Yes.
MR. GRIFFIN: Which is the shotgun that Alex Murdaugh had and was taken by Deputy Greene, right?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. Item 22 was a Benelli Model Super Black Eagle, and I did receive that item in June, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And when did you receive -- I'm not going to pick it up again because I dropped it, and it's almost past 5:00 on a Friday and I don't want to create a bit more of a delay, but when did you receive the 300 Blackout?
PAUL GREER: Is that the Item 33 rifle?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir.
PAUL GREER: I received Item 33, which was inside SLED Container K, on June 10th.
MR. GRIFFIN: And when did you issue your preliminary opinions to -- on Item 33 and Item 22 to your agency, SLED?
PAUL GREER: I released some results to our agents and investigators on June 10th, yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Are you aware after June 10th that SLED dive teams had been going out to Colleton County diving the waters trying to find the murder weapon?
PAUL GREER: I'm not aware of what all our dive teams were doing, no, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, you certainly didn't report to the folks who were relying on your work that we found the murder weapon, did you?
PAUL GREER: I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
MR. GRIFFIN: You didn't report to the folks at SLED who rely upon your analysis that, hey, eureka we've got the murder weapons.
PAUL GREER: No, sir, that's not what I reported.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you've never received any projectiles from the shooting range at Moselle to compare --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered.
MR. GRIFFIN: I haven't asked my question yet.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I've got to hear the question.
MR. GRIFFIN: Have you ever received any projectiles from the shooting range at Moselle to compare to the projectile, Item Number 8?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. It's been asked and answered.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Possibly, but you can answer it again if you've answered it before.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
PAUL GREER: Based on my understanding of the scene, I do not believe I received any projectiles from that shooting area, and that's based on my understanding of where I believe the other projectiles were recovered from.
MR. GRIFFIN: When you got Item 22, the shotgun, do you know whether it had been swabbed on the inside of the barrel?
PAUL GREER: I believe it had been processed by other departments; however, I do not know what those swabs entailed.
MR. GRIFFIN: If a shotgun has been recently fired, does it leave evidence in the barrel, soot and stuff?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. It's possible that we would see some type of residue from firing in that barrel.
MR. GRIFFIN: And are you aware that Agent Worley swabbed the top before she removed the 16 gauge shell from it?
PAUL GREER: No, sir. I do not know what Agent Worley did in this investigation.
MR. GRIFFIN: Can you see residue with the naked eye on a shotgun that's just recently been fired?
PAUL GREER: Sometimes, yes, sir. And that is something that we also document as part of our examination of the firearm. And when I looked into the barrel and looked down the bore of that Item 22 shotgun, I do have in my case file circled that I noticed the some fouling or residue in the barrel.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right. Was it recent fouling of residue or was it just a dirty gun?
PAUL GREER: I do not -- I can't date when that fouling was placed there or that was residue -- that residue was placed there, no, sir, I can't put a time on that.
MR. GRIFFIN: What about the 300 Blackout, was it -- and I think you have a note there was some fouling there but maybe I'm confusing --
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that's correct. On the Item 33 rifle, I did note that there were some fouling of residues in that barrel.
MR. GRIFFIN: The opinion that you have provided this Court as to the shell casings from the murder scene, which are Items -- SLED Items 2 through 7, and that your opinion is that they were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time with Items 35 through 37, 39, 108, 113, 116, 17, and 122, and those are shell casings that were found around the house and at the shooting range, your opinion that they were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm, are you -- do you hold that opinion with 100 percent certainty?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, that is my opinion; that is the conclusion that I reached.
MR. GRIFFIN: Did you ever tell Agent Owen that you could not forensically state with 100 percent certainty?
PAUL GREER: No, sir. When I arrived at that conclusion, that was my conclusion, and it was also agreed upon by the reviewing examiner.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, if there's a note in Agent Owen's report that you couldn't reach it with 100 percent certainty, then someone has made a mistake?
PAUL GREER: I don't know the contents of Agent Owen's report.
MR. GRIFFIN: That's all I have, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any redirect?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Let's all stand for a moment.
(Break in proceedings.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay. Yes, sir.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FERNANDEZ:
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Greer, I'm handing you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 400. Could you kindly review that very quickly and let me know if you're familiar with what it is?
(Break in proceedings.)
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What is that?
PAUL GREER: This appears to be a copy of my report.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is it an accurate and complete copy of your report?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, it does appear to be.
MR. FERNANDEZ: All of the things we've just discussed today?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The State would move to admit State's Exhibit 400, I believe without objection.
MR. GRIFFIN: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(GREER REPORT MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 400 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Greer, would you please, you know, because some of the questions concerned your field, please tell us. How long has firearms identification and tool mark identification, how long has it been around?
PAUL GREER: In its current form, I would say the early 1900s is when this really became popular and firearms identification was born with several important cases. It was as early as the 1900s that they started looking at this evidence and looking at those individual characteristics through a microscopy. So ever since that time, it's just evolved and grew with further research and support, advances in technology, and -- but it's been around for several years.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And are you familiar with any studies that were done utilizing what would be called consecutive barrels of firearms?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Explain to us what those consecutive studies would be and what they -- what's done in those?
PAUL GREER: Sure. When we're looking at those characteristics under the microscope that were imparted onto a fired bullet or -- excuse me, a fired bullet or cartridge case, we're looking at all those tiny little features. A consecutively manufactured study takes into the account of the manufacturing process. So, all of those marks, as we discussed, are coming from that gun being produced by a manufacturer, metal scraping and removing metal, so we have tools cutting and tools stamping, and really working on hard metal surfaces. So, when we look at a study that has consecutively manufactured things, that presents an opportunity for a worse case scenario for us as examiners. If those tools were going to leave markings on other firearms -- so, if you had this breech face being made by the tool and it made the next one and it made the next one, those are consecutively manufactured.
If there's any carryover of those characteristics from one to another, that's what that study does, it highlights that. It puts that as an emphasis as part of that study. And we as examiners are looking at that. That's our worse case scenario. If we're going to see any carryover of that tool making that, that item or that breech face, we would expect to see marks. There's several studies that are out there, and I've participated in several of those as part of my training where we're given samples that have been fired by consecutively manufactured barrels. So, if we see any agreement between each of those barrels, we should see it there, or studies where we have consecutively manufactured breech faces. Again, those are breech faces made by the same tool, one right after another, and if we see agreement in there we should see it in that study.
I've participated in those -- excuse me, in those research projects, some of them have been studies, prior to me becoming an examiner, and I was able to clearly distinguish, and accurately distinguish, between those projectiles. So, I was able to determine those projectiles were fired by this barrel, this barrel, this barrel, and this barrel, or that cartridge case was fired by this gun with that breech face, this gun with that breech face, and this gun with that breech face. So, we are aware of that in our community, and we do things to be proactive on that, and that's just an example. And then that's something that I participated in and was able to successfully pass as part of my competency in determining what was fired by what in those consecutively manufactured studies.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And those were -- and you were able to compare firearms that you know were consecutively manufactured one after the other right after the other.
PAUL GREER: That is correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And just for clarity, you were talking about Item -- I'm referring to Items 33 and 22 on your report. That would be the -- Item 33 being the Blackout rifle and then Item 22 on the camouflage Black Eagle 3?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Your results for some of those were -- when you say inconclusive, what does that mean? Does that mean that they could have been fired or that they -- you just can't determine it?
PAUL GREER: That's correct. Inconclusive is one of our conclusions that we can issue when there's not enough agreement or disagreement there in those tiny microscopic characteristics. So, what inconclusive means, it's possible it could have been fired by that gun, and it's possible that it may not have been fired by that gun.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm going to refer your attention to State's -- to your Item Number 165, State's Exhibit 147, and remind us again what that item is.
PAUL GREER: Could I see Item 165?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We may can find it.
PAUL GREER: Sorry.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Would you be able to find it in your report if you have it?
PAUL GREER: No, sir. I'm not sure that I would be able to find it.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: All right, I'm handing you what's been entered into evidence as State's 147. That would be SLED Item 165.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Would you identify what this is again and where it was located when it was found more importantly?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. This was a Winchester 12 gauge shotshell, and on the side of the shotshell it's stamped Drylok 3 inch 2. On the packaging for State's Exhibit 147 it says from nightstand in Paul's room.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, and I know counsel asked you a question about, you know, your field being applied science. Just so we understand what an applied science is, are there any other examples of fields that are applied in that general realm of applied sciences?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir. A lot of what we do as firearms examiner is learned through our process of training and looking at samples and learning the job. It's kind of like, if you will, a physician. They go to school, they learn a lot in their medical school, but they still do a residency program, if you will. So, they're on the job doing on the job training --
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object to comparing what he does to --
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is overruled.
MR. GRIFFIN: -- the practice of medicine.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may continue.
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir.
PAUL GREER: So, they learn things in school. Firearms identification is not something that you can necessarily go to a school and learn to do. You can't get a four year degree and become a firearms examiner the next day. There are universities across the nation that have firearms identification as part of their firearms program, and they're teaching that component. But in order to achieve your competency at this, you need on the job training. You need the experience in looking at these samples and knowing how to evaluate the markings that we're looking at on these ammunition components.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Lastly, Agent Greer, I want refer you to State's Exhibit 400, and I will put that on the screen. I'm going to direct your attention to Item 128. Can you see that on your screen, Mr. Greer?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I can.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Specifically your findings concerning 2 through 7, do you see where my pen is pointed?
PAUL GREER: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Which items were from 2 through 7?
PAUL GREER: Those were from Markers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively, and from my understanding of the crime scene those were the ones that were located around Margaret Murdaugh's body.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, and again, we're on what page now, Mr. Greer?
PAUL GREER: That's on page 7, yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Items 2 through 7 found on Maggie's body. Items 35 through 37 and 39, where were those located?
PAUL GREER: Those were from the side entrance door, which would be the door, I believe, coming out of the gun room area.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And items 108, 113, 116 through 17, and 122, where were those located?
PAUL GREER: Those were from various areas thought to be from the shoot field, or from the field.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And tell me again what they -- what your conclusion was.
PAUL GREER: I was able to determine that, based on matching characteristics and the mechanism marks, that Items 2 through 7, 35 through 37, 39, 108, 113, 116 through 117, and 122, had all been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Nothing further. Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Further examination?
MR. GRIFFIN: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Thank you. You may step down. While he's preparing to step down, ladies and gentlemen, we will recess for the remainder of the day and the weekend, and I need you back at 11:30 on Monday morning. 11:30. Please do not discuss the case.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
(The witness exited the stand.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: If everyone will be seated. So when we reconvene at 9:30 Monday morning, which witnesses will you have?
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, if we're talking about the in-camera hearing --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.
MR. WATERS: -- we'll have Mark Tinsley. And we do have another issue, which I had indicated to Your Honor perhaps in pretrial conversation as to a conversation that took place a few days after the crimes occurred in which there were a number of individuals present and Mr. Murdaugh was present. I don't know the contents of that meeting because I've been -- out of an abundance of caution have stayed away from that, and I believe that we may have a little bit of testimony just on whether or not there was any attorney/client privilege to that conversation. I've been careful throughout this investigation preparation not to be privy to that, but I do believe that it is not an attorney/client privileged conversation, but I would like the Court's ruling on that before I became privy to the contents of that. That's the only other issue at this time that I think would be addressed in camera that morning.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, if I might?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sort of surprised here. Were those conversations recorded?
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Neither one of us knows what the contents of those conversations are.
MR. WATERS: I believe Mr. Griffin was present at this meeting, which is exactly why I wanted the Court's ruling before I am made privy to the contents of the defendant's statements at that meeting.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: We're not quite sure -- we'll wait with bated breath to hear whatever it is.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Can you be more specific as to what you're talking about, Mr. Waters?
MR. WATERS: Well, my understanding there was a meeting or some sort of gathering in which Mr. Griffin and Mr. Murdaugh and then a number of other individuals were present in which the defendant made some statements that --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Law enforcement individuals?
MR. WATERS: No, no. We think some of his partners and some other individuals, maybe some family, to which I have never been privy to the contents. However, I would like to know the contents, but I've been careful out of an abundance of caution not to ever become privy until I have a ruling from the Court that there was no attorney/client privilege because of the presence of third parties to that conversation. So, I would like to address that with the Court, and if the Court believes that in the rules that there is no attorney/client privilege, then I may, you know, at the appropriate time examine people who were present at that conversation as to what the defendant said.
JUDGE NEWMAN: And is that any relation to financial crimes or --
MR. WATERS: No, sir. That would be in relation to the murders of Maggie and Paul. But it is an in-camera matter that I -- if we have the time available I wanted to raise that with the Court and maybe we can go ahead and knock that one out as well.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Any thoughts by the defense?
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, what he's referring to is -- and maybe -- it was on Thursday, June 10th, when SLED came to John Marvin Murdaugh's hunting property to interview Alex, to interview John Marvin Murdaugh, Randy Murdaugh, Buster Murdaugh, and before the -- and I was there to represent Alex for the purpose of that. Before SLED got there, we were all in the house. I have no idea what beyond that he's talking about. I mean, what was supposedly said or heard, I have no idea beyond that. I don't know any conversations that he is trying to find the substance of and who he's going to get them from.
MR. WATERS: And, Your Honor, I think that's just it. I mean, we would have a witness as to the circumstances and who was present, and in the event that Your Honor rules that because of the presence of third parties it's not a protected conversation, then I would then, you know, become privy, or ask to become privy to the contents of that, and --
JUDGE NEWMAN: By asking -- by inquiring of who?
MR. WATERS: Well, the witnesses who were present, and so I'm going to call one of those --
JUDGE NEWMAN: The law partners?
MR. WATERS: Exactly. And, again, I wouldn't have to do that on the stand. I would just want Your Honor's blessing before I did that because of an abundance of caution and protection of the attorney/client privilege. At that point I could, you know, offline become privy to the content of it. It may be nothing. I've just been told that there was that meeting and the circumstances of it, and I don't believe it's protected, and so I would like to know, you know, what the defendant said.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: It sounds like he's asking for a deposition, Your Honor. He's got no right to an evidentiary hearing about what happened at a meeting in the course of a trial. He's got no right to compel people to come testify so he can find out what was said. That's discovery. I mean, the State Grand Jury allows him to do that, but there's no rule that permits him to conduct a deposition, whether in court or out of court, and that's what he's trying to do.
MR. WATERS: I'm not asking to conduct a deposition, Your Honor. I have actually been doing this out of an abundance of caution and the protection of the defendant's rights and making sure that we didn't cross a line without the Court's input. And again, the content may be something that's useful or not.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Well, if you would like to brief or send a memo of cases to the Court regarding statements made in the presence of counsel and third parties, whether that's protected by attorney/client privilege or not, then the Court can address the issue.
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir, Your Honor, and I'll be happy to address that Monday morning. I will -- I do have a case, Marshall v. Marshall, 326 Southeastern 2nd 44, which just generally, of course, states the rule that if attorney/client privilege communications are related in the presence of third parties then the protection is lost, and I can go ahead and hand it up to Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And I certainly will be prepared to address that in any greater detail Monday morning. I will hand up this case, and obviously if we prepare additional ones over the weekend, I'll provide those to Your Honor and counsel.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Anything further?
MR. WATERS: Nothing from the State, Your Honor.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Nothing from the defense, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. We'll be in recess until 9:30.
(Whereupon, the case was at ease.)