[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6085034,"mediaKeyId","2906399-ec33a7bab43fed8c6f8361ffee20e479","parentId",2906399,"title","Officer: police seized Smith & Wesson 9mm from Jaylen Bell; lab examiner says scene casing did not match that weapon","audioSeconds",3328,"startMs",6949000,"endMs",10277000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2906399-ec33a7bab43fed8c6f8361ffee20e479&start=6949&end=10277","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2906399-ec33a7bab43fed8c6f8361ffee20e479/thumbnail_6949000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6085034/Texas/Officer-police-seized-Smith-Wesson-9mm-from-Jaylen-Bell-lab-examiner-says-scene-casing-did-not-match-that-weapon","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6085034-cd946e096951411cd7b92bca54b31994/orig.mp4?Expires=1770494625&Signature=ObUbisbDj7IHKRLrxCzRK3HXH~KX1ls0ZUJtF5qN5EZ0BawRJbdI1FLBhIqhTfdDooKAcwhPlA49qmLUSwah3p7ZkYH2QpxX0fC1joUV4nFodEDL3b3e~wn8xbjfLPmrwZH3U~D2smyLh83ZHFhmYsINpg1sVUquIVqR3EwbrGTLL-Yf5~AxyPcGXenubYNxxMsGjY~nZw2G9GAc1Bl~SrCedbgwooyICdXEPzjbN3Dd9B8yWxFpZSPv7XFAnjqLC6NEVZs0CxuInkmmuQhguYpnLU~FDkMIAph0NMsZ0tl~Wv8cWcpVhWba1oCr0CuPVRSrjbxbZS-Xt7C6YZ-elg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-09T06:29:14.167Z","article","DALLAS — Police testimony and forensic analysis presented in the 187th District Court showed investigators seized a Smith & Wesson 9mm from Jaylen Bell but that the laboratory later excluded that gun as the source of a shell casing recovered at the scene.

Officer Jose Bernal of the Dallas Police Department testified that on May 7, 2017, he and a partner responded to an early-morning welfare check and encountered a rear occupant in a taxi. Bernal said a pat search revealed a handgun in the individual\u000beltline. The officer identified the weapon at trial as a black Smith & Wesson 9mm and confirmed the serial number stamped on the firearm was LEJ9244. He said the weapon, a magazine and related packaging were placed into property (entered at trial as State's Exhibit 135).

David Pendleton, a firearms examiner at the Bexar County Criminal Investigation Laboratory, described laboratory procedures and reported he tested that Smith & Wesson by firing the weapon to generate known sample cartridge casings. Pendleton testified he compared those test casings to the fired cartridge case recovered from the scene (State's Exhibit 35) and concluded that the two were not fired in the same firearm. He said the exclusion was reached at the level of class characteristics — differences in the firing-pin impression shape and in the breech-face markings — so he did not have to proceed to individual microscopic comparison.

Key details and evidence chain: Bernal identified the seized weapon and testified it was taken into property and assigned evidence packaging; Pendleton explained the laboratory\u000examination and confirmed reports in the file. Pendleton also testified about the laboratory's quality-control process: an earlier analyst, identified in court as Steven Salcedo, had originally prepared a report in 2017 that misidentified the cartridge description as \".40 Smith & Wesson\"; an amended report in September 2017 corrected the caliber to 9mm. Pendleton said he later reopened or reviewed that file and issued a lab report dated September 12, 2024, after conducting test fires on the weapon available to the lab.

On the stand, Pendleton described the kinds of features examiners review: caliber and cartridge-case length (class characteristics) and the finer individual marks left by a firearm on fired cases or bullets. He testified that the test-fired casings from serial LEJ9244 exhibited a firing-pin and breech-face signature inconsistent with the cartridge case recovered from the scene. Pendleton said the Smith & Wesson example displayed a \"teardrop\"-style firing-pin impression and a particular breech-face contour characteristic of that make and model; the scene casing did not share those class features and thus was excluded as having been fired from that weapon.

Defense cross-examination probed possible sources of variation: the defense asked whether long storage, corrosion, manufacture variability, or other handling could change a weapon
nd therefore alter impressions over time. Pendleton acknowledged that many variables can affect impressions but testified that, absent a forced change or damage, firearms generally retain class and individual characteristics and that the differences he observed were sufficient for an exclusion.

The defense also asked whether an earlier exemplar might have been entered into a national database (NIBIN) from Dallas; Pendleton said he did not review any exemplar fired in Dallas and instead compared the scene casing to the test fires he produced in San Antonio. He explained the database can provide leads but is not a substitute for a controlled laboratory comparison.

Court action on exhibits: The court admitted State's Exhibit 135 (the seized firearm and magazine) and State's Exhibit 138 (photographs of comparison casings). The defense cross-examination highlighted the passage of time between the 2017 recovery of the scene casing and the later testing of the seized weapon, and the examiner acknowledged the absence of an earlier test-fired exemplar in the court record for comparison.

What this means for the case: The prosecution offered testimony establishing possession of a firearm by Jaylen Bell and the weapon's seizure in 2017. The lab's exclusion means the particular shell casing submitted from the scene has not been forensically matched to that seized gun based on the class-level differences Pendleton described. The court admitted the firearm into evidence and the examiner's exclusion into the record; how the factfinder will weigh that evidence is for the jury.

Trial status: After Pendleton's testimony and admission of exhibits, counsel completed questioning and the court recessed; the trial will continue with further witnesses and evidence.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","TUE., APRIL 8, 2025/JUDGE STEPHANIE BOYD/187TH DISTRICT COURT/JURY: STATE VS MCINTYRE","oneSentenceSummary","Officer Jose Bernal testified that Dallas police seized a black Smith & Wesson 9mm (serial LEJ9244) from Jaylen Bell on May 7, 2017; Bexar County firearms examiner David Pendleton testified that test-fired cartridge cases from that weapon did not match the scene casing recovered in 2017.","taxTitle","Judge Stephanie Boyd 187th District, District Court Judges, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66298,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6085038,"Judge finds defense violated motion in limine after questioning witness about alleged images; jury told to disregard",1083,1657000,2740000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2906399-ec33a7bab43fed8c6f8361ffee20e479&start=1657&end=2740","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2906399-ec33a7bab43fed8c6f8361ffee20e479/thumbnail_1657000.jpg","/articles/6085038/Texas/Judge-finds-defense-violated-motion-in-limine-after-questioning-witness-about-alleged-images-jury-told-to-disregard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6085038-7d9f5654de4c4a5ef886979cd045a32c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770494625&Signature=ouoR2qpUaQXajRz4GQNO0fg35cEyvtPKvWFxjHV9TBt37PwD08W0-3KZmrO7rb1HGDFfTQ-Ug8R1nRwmgsCjYaa9yADC9SYdIrEkHeyBZJ8u3GVVg75e5xri09d2ymzwiDWGRh9goh4xNyxPghigRmvkg8EM9ndbzp2A44zx9KKyTNV~5O~7LQGrRIhCeHgXgapVLeG1pXuhZgNdo-LefqS6rj8BjfltG19KrgY~Uo5sk5nnd3al8EKkIgiVUkNPhPvfmNOe6Szsokb6GYYaBYMbkv7WONXvMnUTssGBA6f8JCfkC6TB~18HEdK5jaI-lRzPp8UOEEQeQXeVm2RudA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","DALLAS — Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court ruled that defense questioning during the testimony of Joanna Reyes violated the state\fourt\u000bar on discussing alleged crimes or bad acts of the victim and instructed jurors to entirely disregard a line of questioning about alleged images on the victim
nd denied a motion for mistrial.

The ruling came after defense counsel asked Reyes on direct whether she had told others that images of a sexual nature, including what the parties characterized at one point as potentially criminal images, had been found in the complainant
nd whether she had discussed those images with third parties. The prosecutor had previously filed a motion in limine asking that \"any crimes, wrongs, or bad acts of the victim, Mark Anthony Saldivar,\" not be presented to the jury without first approaching the court. The judge said defense counsel failed to approach the bench as required and found the motion had been violated.

Why it matters: Trial limits on evidence are intended to prevent jurors from hearing inflammatory or prejudicial material about a victim that has not been vetted for admissibility. The judge\u000found the defense crossed that line and took immediate remedial steps to limit jury exposure.

In court, Judge Boyd told counsel she considered the reference to alleged images a bad act that fell squarely within the state's motion in limine and said defense counsel should have approached the court outside the jury's presence before asking the question. \"You violated the motion in limine,\" the judge said, and ordered the jury to disregard the single question and any answer that may have followed.

The defense argued the questions sought to test the witness\fredibility and prior inconsistent statements and were not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted; counsel told the court the intent was impeachment, not to \"accuse\" the victim. The judge disagreed that approach procedures had been followed and rejected that explanation as a cure for a pretrial order that requires advance notice.

The judge declined the defense
sk for a mistrial. The court instead directed that the witness be taken from the courtroom briefly, told jurors to disregard the question and answer, and then the witness was returned and testimony resumed. The court further noted that if counsel believed evidence fell within an exception the proper step was to approach the bench before asking the jury-facing question.

Joanna Reyes was testifying about the events that preceded the April 2017 offense date identified in court papers. During earlier testimony she described what she said she had told a detective and what she had told other acquaintances about the events leading to the altercation that culminated with the victim on the hood of a vehicle. On cross-examination the defense pursued those prior statements and whether Reyes had described seeing condoms and lubricant in the victim\u000backpack; the judge ordered the jury to disregard any reference to sexual images and admonished counsel that questions about bad acts of the victim must be presented to the court prior to being asked in open court.

The court
lso addressed other topics that counsel raised about prior statements, impeachment and admissibility, instructing counsel on the correct procedural step — approach the bench and obtain a ruling — before placing such material before the jury.

Courtroom status: After the ruling the trial proceeded; the court indicated exhibits and testimony would be handled consistent with motion-in-limine requirements going forward and recalled witnesses as needed.

A denial of mistrial does not prevent later appellate arguments about the propriety of the admission or exclusion of particular evidence; Judge Boyd\rid not announce additional sanctions for the defense beyond the jury admonition.","During testimony by a prosecution witness, the defense asked whether the alleged victim possessed explicit images; Judge Stephanie Boyd ruled that questioning violated a state motion in limine, ordered the jury to disregard the question and answer, and denied a defense motion for mistrial.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Officer: police seized Smith & Wesson 9mm from Jaylen Bell; lab examiner says scene casing did not match that weapon

Judge finds defense violated motion in limine after questioning witness about alleged images; jury told to disregard