the absence of a separate Daubert hearing, the court briefly analyzes each of the Daubert factors. 1. Whether the particular theory has been tested “Ordinarily, a key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or technique is [expert] knowledge that-will assist the trier of fact will be whether it can be (and has been) tested.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786. The AFTE methodology has been repeatedly tested. See Otero, 849 F.Supp.2d at 433 (“The literature in the field of firearms and toolmark identification documents that the theory has been repeatedly tested.”); Taylor, 663 F.Supp.2d at 1175-76 (noting studies “demonstrating that the methods underlying firearms identification can, at least to some degree, be tested and reproduced”); Diaz, 2007 WL 485967, at *6 (<HOLDING>). For example, researchers have performed
holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence holding that the theory of firearms identification though based on examiners subjective assessment of individual characteristics has been and can be tested holding court may rely on other evidence in the record where plaintiffs total time theory has been rejected holding that an individual can waive any process to which he or she has a right holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution