Can anyone see any reason not to use this in CCW applications?  It's not illegal where I live, and it's probably the most effective 9mm JHP available.  Here in Indiana, if it's a good shoot, it's a good shoot, usually.

QS

    Use it, Winchester sells to distributors as LE only, however, if the distributor will sell it to you, there is no legal issue. SXT, is a very good round. The politically correct BLACK TALON.

Possible repercussions from a smart lawyer in that you chose a bullet that has had bad publicity with its' knife blades/tissue shredding claws.

Who cares what kind of bullet you used? It's either a justifiable use of deadly force or it isn't. How the deadly force is effected matters not.

I can't see the type of ammo used being an issue unless the claim is that you accidentally or negligently fired. If you're claiming self-defense, you're affirming the fact that you INTENTIONALLY fired. At that point, the only question is whether your actions were reasonable and justified. If you were justified in shooting with a 9mm FMJ, you were justified in shooting with a .50BMG. If you were not justified, you're just as fried no matter what kind of gun or bullet you use.
The prosecutor or the plaintiff's atty can babble on about the ammo you used, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter if you take the stand and say "Yes, I shot him. Five times in fact. I did it intentionally. He was trying to kill me and I felt that I had no choice. I stopped shooting as soon as I felt he was no longer a threat."

That's my thinking on the subject.  My legal education is limited to a bachelor's in criminology, and I'm smart enough to know that doesn't always correlate to the real world.  

Steve-in-VA?  Any thoughts?

edited to add:
Civil liability-wise, is this an increase in exposure?

I generally agree with dbrowne1 but I personally believe in using the caliber and load that the PD or State Police use in your state.  Remember there may still be liability in a justified shooting and you could be found negligent if you injure an innocent bystander.  YMMV.

Nothing that 5 minutes worth of direct on an expert witness won't fix.
D's Atty: "Mr. Ballistics Expert, could you describe the difference in terminal effect between the bullet used by the defendant and that used by the local police department?"

Expert: "Minimal if any. Both are what is called a "jacketed hollowpoint", and both exhibit similar behavior upon entering tissue. The difference in wounds would be more a function of random events than the bullets themselves."

etc., etc.

Depending on whether you're in a common law or federal rules state in terms of evidence and how far the expert is allowed to testify, he could blow the prosecution's "Uberdeadly ammo" smear out of the water in a way that no jury would miss.

Even the OJ criminal trial jury? [:D]

the thing is not every attrny can pull a ballistic expert witness out of his hat.

The real goal [b]IF[/b] possible is to get the grand jury to not indict you in the first place.  

Kind of a hard task considering that only the prosecutor gets to talk, and only a majority of grand jurors must agree (not unanimous) that there is merely probable cause (not guilt beyond reasonable doubt). Plus, even if they no bill you, the prosecutor can just convene another one and keep trying. Double jeopardy isn't triggered until a trial on the merits begins.

Cyrax777-

The attorney doesn't pull the expert out of his hat. If the ammo is going to be an issue (and you will know well ahead of time whether it will be), there are directories, lists, books, etc. FULL of qualified experts in every field imaginable. It will take a paralegal 5 minutes to get an expert.

It's not the court time or travel expenses that you get killed on, it's the time that the expert has to spend reviewing the evidence and such. I won't speculate on an exact number for a case like this, but from what I've seen it's hourly and it's likely to be substantially more than your lawyer's hourly rate depending on the expert's field and his/her experience and demand.

I'm going into my last year of law school, so I've been sufficiently brainwa....err, indoctrin...err, that is, taught to believe that a "jury" is a magical, omniscient, supernatural being that determines and interprets facts perfectly, and nobody can second guess them.
dbrowne1 -> [spank] <- law school
Especially in common law states like VA where the expert can't tell them what something actually means, because it would be invading the province of the jury. [rolleyes]

Try some Trition Quick-Shoks... They work as advertised.

Agreed, but prosecutors aren't always looking to indict.  They don't like bad guys either and if the shooting was justified they just might give you a break when presenting the case.  In NY it's almost a guarantee your case will be presented to a grand jury.  I don’t know if using this ammo would be a factor but why be the test case?  

As I'm sure you know, any experienced lawyer will tell you that juries are unpredictable.  They lose cases they should have won and win cases they should have lost.  

Just my opinion but I don't see the advantage of using LE only ammo when there are as good or better ammo choices that don't have the stigma of "restricted LE only".  YMMV.

Good luck in your career.  We need more lawyers like you and Steve involved in RKBA and firearm related issues.