Death Row Kentucky
Mr. Ronnie Lee Bowling # 32 861 Cell
Kentucky State Penitentiary P.O.Box 5128
Eddyville, KY 42038 U.S.A.
For a first contact if you like: RonnieBowling@deathrow-usa.com,
please leave a postal address for response. Thank You
state going to kill an innocent Clay County Man?
Case No. 2006-SC-000034-MR COMPARITIVE BULLET LEAD ANALYSIS"
1.) This interview today is about Junk-Science that mislead the Capital Jury
at my trial. The junk-science is called, "COMPARATIVE BULLET LEAD
ANALYSIS" , commonly known as, "CBLA" . CBLA is a special
branch of Metallurgy that was used by the FBI to link different bullets.
There was only one place in the
that did this kind of bullet testing, it was the FBI Crime Laboratory at
Now nowhere is this testing done.
2.) CBLA analyzes the bullet components to determine its' metal composition.
Then, they take that metal composition and compare it to other sets of lead
bullets to see if the metal composition matches.
3.) The FBI had received a lot of criticism over CBLA testing in the late
80' s and the early 90' s, so they commissioned the, "NATIONAL RESEARCH
COMMISSION" commonly y known as NRC to conduct a study of their methods
and test results.
The NRC did, and took about year and half to complete their study. On Feb.1
0, 2004 they released their conclusions in a 113 page report called,
"FORENSIC ANALYSIS: WEIGHING BULLET LEAD EVIDENCE". NRC said the
CBLA is unreliable and very misleading. They summed up their report on page
113 with, "THE AVAILABLE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT ANY STATEMENT THAT A CRIME
BULLET CAME FROM, OR IS LIKELY TO HAVE COME FROM, A PARTICULAR BOX OF
AMMUNITION, AND REFERENCES TO "BOXES" OF AMMUNITION IN ANY FORM
ARE SERIOUSLY MISLEADING UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 403. TESTIMONY THAT
THE CRIME Bullet' CAME FROM THE DEFENDANT' S BOX OR FROM A BOX MANUFACTURED
AT THE SAME TIME, IS ALSO· OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE IT MAY BE UNDERSTOOD AS
IMPLYING A SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THAT THE BULLET CAME FROM DEFENDANT'S
4.) The FBI took this NRC report as a recommendation and conducted their own
study of CBLA, and on Sept. 1
,2005 they released a memo agreeing with NRC and stopped all testing of
5.) At my trial the prosecutor in his Opening Statement to the Capital Jury
spoke in great detail about this CBLA evidence & FBI expert testimony
about the results of CBLA. I shall now quote directly from the trial
transcripts, page 2561, the prosecutor told the jury, "THIS IS THE
STRING THAT TIES ALL MY EVIDENCE 'TOGETHER." He talks like this for
several pages of the trial transcript and this was just in the Opening
6.) The prosecutors FBI expert testified he went on and on and on in front
of the jury about CBLA, that it took 54 pages worth of trial transcript.
The FBI expert made really prejudicial comments to the jury, such as on page
3118 of the trial transcript, he said, "IN MY VIEW THEY ARE THE SAME -
- FALL INTO THE SAME COMPOSITION GROUP AND THEREFORE Originate FROM THE SAME
MANUFACTURER' S BATCH OF Bullet' LEAD." I mean his guy just did not
make "strong Suggestions" he testified conclusively that these
were the same.
7.) Then the prosecutor comes back in his Closing Argument, on page 3578 of
the trial transcript and says to the jury, "BUT THIS CASE CAN COME TO
COLD ANALYTICAL Facts...BY AN F.B.I. AGENT,...TOLD YOU, THAT HE RAS NEVER
SEEN BULLET'S OUT OF THE SAME BATCH USED IN UNRELATED CRIMES." The
prosecutor goes on and on and on like this in his Closing Argument. Such as
on page 3578 of the trial transcript he said to the jury," IT GOES
WITHOUT DISPUTING, NO ONE HERE COULD QUESTION THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERT OF
THE FINDINGS OR THE CONCLUSIONS OF THAT EXPERT..." The prosecutor
really hammers it in when he told the jury in his Closing summation of his case,
on page 3591 of the trial transcript, "THEN YOU HAVE IT ALL TIED
'TOGETHER THAT IS THE MURDERER. ALL OUT OF THE SAME BATCH." He is
telling the jury that Ronnie Bowling was the murderer because all the sets
of lead bullets came out of one ammunition box.
8.) Now with the fact that CBLA is deemed unreliable and abandoned by the
only one place,1;:he FBI, that tested it. This is new evidence that shows
how the jury was mislead with this CBLA evidence & FBI expert testimony.
Several cases around
have already been reversed and remanded back for a new trial based on this
new evidence. As a matter of fact right here in
has been a case, so far. The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in Ragland v.
Commonwealth, (2006) ("WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ADMISSION OF THE "C.
B.L.A. “ TEST RESULTS AND EXPERT' S OPINIONS ABOUT THOSE RESULTS REQUIRE
REVERSAL FOR A NEW TRIAL. ") If it is junk-science in Ragland' s case
then it is junk-science in my case.
9. ) Other cases have been overturned based on the new evidence about CBLA
evidence such as Clemons v.
(2006). In that case the Court in state of
said, ("THIS CASE PRESENTS US WITH THE TASK OF DETERMINING WHETHER
CERTAIN CONCLUSORY ASPECT OF COMPARATIVE BULLET LEAD ANALYSIS
("C.B.L.A. ") ARE ADMISSIBLE... WE DETERMINE HERE THAT THE
CONCLUSORY Aspects OF CBLA ARE NOT GENERALLY ACCEPTED.. .'.THEREFORE WE
REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS, AND REMAND THE CASE
'ID THE CIRCUIT COURT For A NEW TRIAL. 11 )
10.) There is even a United States Supreme court case overturning a case
where CBLA was used. It is called,
v. Mikos (2003)-This case was ruled on at a time when the FBI was still
conducting CBLA testing, now they do not conduct CBLA testing. The US
Supreme court ruled and said in this case, "THERE IS NO BODY OD DATA TO
CORROBORATE THE GOVERNMENT' S EXPERT’S FURTHER OPINION THAT FROM THIS
FINDING IT FOLLOWS THAT THE BULLETS MUST OR EVEN LIKELY CAME FROM THE SAME
BATCH OR MELT. “Now just think this is the United States Supreme Court
saying the FBI expert can' t do what they did in my case.
11.) Then another case in
was granted a new trial based on the new evidence about CBLA. It is called,
State v. Behn, (2005) That Court's holding was, "DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED
TO NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, WHICH CONSISTED OF STUDIES
ON COMPOSITION BULLET'S LEAD ANALYSIS (CBLA) THAT HAD NOT BEEN DEVELOPED AND
COMPLETED PRIOR TO DEFENDANT'S TRIAL. 11 This guy got a new trial, and this
was even before the FBI sent . out their memo on Sept. 1 ,2005 stopping all
testing of CBLA.
12.) Then the new evidence about CBLA got another case reversed and remanded
back for a new trial. This case is out of
. It is Commonwealth v.
. Lykus (2005). Here is a direct quote from that Court' s opinion giving
Lykus a new trail, "THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AT TRAIL- WAS
VERY STRONG, HOWEVER, THE COURT CANNOT SAY THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE OF GUILT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT THAT THE NEWLY DISCOVERED NRC REPORT
ON CBLA EVIDENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN LESS WEIGHT. THE NRC REPORT ON CBLA
EVIDENCE, IF AVAILABLE TO THE JURY AT THE TIME OF THE DEFENDANT'S TRIAL,
ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD "probably HAVE BEEN A REAL FACTOR IN THE JURY' S
DELIBERATIONS. 11 AS SUCH, THE NRC REPORT ON CBLA EVIDENCE IS PROPERLY
CONSIDERED NEW EVIDENCE AND REQUIRES THIS COURT TO GRANT DEFENDANT' S
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. “ In this guys case they had a strong case against
him, and the court still granted him a new trial on the new evidence about
CBLA, and this was even before the FBI released their memo on Sept.1,2005
stopping all testing on CBLA.
13.) If CBLA evidence & the FBI testimony was deemed unreliable in these
cases, then it is unreliable and misleading in my case, too.
14.) At this time I am seeking a new trial from the Kentucky Supreme court.
I have filed briefs with this above information in it. The Attorney General
's office filed their brief against me. However, I would like to quote same
from the AG's brief about his summation of the state's case/evidence against
me, , ON page 30 of his brief. He calls the state' s case,
15.) If they will grant a new trial in Commonwealth v. Lykus (2005) based on
the new evidence about CBLA, when that Court summed up the evidence as
"very strong", then surely in a case that is
"circumstantial" should a trial be granted.
16.) After my trial, I have obtained other additional evidence that should
be weighed in my, favor of winning a new trial. Such as I got 3 different
Affidavits from 3 of the jurors that heard the case, the stab~ put on
against me. They said they would have found me not guilty. . They were
selected off as alternates.
17. ) I have other affidavits from other jurors that sat on my case that
said had they known the jailhouse informant name of Tim Chappell had lied
and received favorable treatment in exchange for his . lies against me, this
would have changed their verdict We know Chappell lied and did in fact
receive favorable treatment, because I have a sworn affidavit from his
attorney at that time, name of Barbara Carnes. The jurors said if they would
have known that about Chappell it would’ve changed their verdict.
18. ) I have an affidavit from a guy that was in j ail with Tim Chappell
that said Chappell told him he was going to make up a story against me just
in order to try to help himself get out of trouble in the courts.
19. ) I have an eye-witness to one of the crimes that occurred in
. A Randy Harris testified at an Evidencetiary Hearing in a/post-conviction
hearing he was there the morning that Ronald Smith was allegedly
killed/robbed . and said he saw a man come running out of the station and·
that man was not .
Ronnie Bowling. Harris reported this to the Laurel county Sheriff 's
department the very next day, after he saw witnesses to crime.
20. ) None of this additional evidence was available in front of my jury.
All of this should be took into
consideration because it would come into play in front of a new jury. Plus
this is a death penalty case. You can be reasonably certain that a Capital
Jury 1s going to listen very careful to all an FBI exert says about CBLA
evidence. This CBLA evidence & FBI expert witness about the results
rendered the jury biased and the trial unfair in my case. This case comes
down to "Link The BULLETS“. The prosecutor relied chiefly upon CBLA
evidence & FBI expert testimony to link the different sets of lead
The prosecutor called the CBLA evidence & FBI expert testimony his
string that ties all. his case together. Well that string does not exist
anymore. Not only does that string not exist, but I discovered additional
evidence that was not presented to my original trial that is favorable to
me, all of this should go to grant me a new trail.
EXTRA NOTE: These are my notes that I typed up for an interview with WLEX
Ch.18 News out of Lexington,KY. This interview was on June
14th,2007,Thursday here at
Penitentiary. This was aired on TV on Friday, June 15th,2007 at 6 p.m. news.
More on Mr. Ronnie Lee Bowling's case: http://www.iippi.org/inmates/kentucky/ronnieleebowling.html