On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:04:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2018 6:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI

So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line
helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the
line.

As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests.

Nope, that wasn't specified. They said they allowed the headform to
contact the anvil. That in itself doesn't mean they didn't pass the 300g
test.

Failing to pass some test other than the CPSC standard required for sale in the USA would make no sense from the standpoint of a criminal prosecution.

From the AUSA's trial memo:

The remaining two witnesses, Clint Mattacola and Niko Henderson, will testify about the
destructive impact tests that they conducted on Specialized and Giro bicycle helmets,
respectively. These helmets were put through a series of tests which were documented with
photos and videos. Additionally, these findings were memorialized in the form of an affidavit
written by Clint Mattacola, and a lab report written by Niko Henderson. The affidavit and lab
report indicate that both helmets failed the impact tests pursuant to CPSC 16 CFR 1203, and
therefore were unsafe for use by the general public. The affidavit written by Clint Mattacola
was provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. The lab report
written by Niko Henderson was provided to the defendant on May 11, 2018, two days after the
United States received the report on May 9, 2018. The videos of both of these impact tests
were previously provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case.

I pulled the docket. So yes, the helmets failed to meet CPSC standards. BTW, trial transcripts were not available and may not be part of the record in the Western District of Kentucky. Oddly, there was no expert disclosure of the USA's witnesses -- but there were disclosures for the defendant. Proving that the helmets didn't meet CPSC standards is not an element of either charged crime and was probably offered on some issue relevant to sentencing, e.g. potential harm to the public.

-- Jay Beattie.