The Difference Between Preliminary Field and Laboratory Testing [WLOs: 1, 2, 4] [CLOs: 2, 3, 4, 5] Handling and processing evidence is an integra
The Difference Between Preliminary Field and Laboratory Testing
[WLOs: 1, 2, 4] [CLOs: 2, 3, 4, 5]
Handling and processing evidence is an integral component of crime scene management because it lays the foundation for everything the court must consider when weighing the admissibility of evidence. For the most part, the courts prefer testing being carried out in a laboratory setting. However, there are exceptions, such as times when an initial examination also yields valuable information. In this assignment, you will differentiate between testing that might be done on-scene versus in the laboratory, identify testing that might be subject to preliminary testing, as well as compare the different results yielded by preliminary field versus laboratory testing. Support your assignment with examples from this week’s required material(s) and/or a minimum of three other scholarly or credible resources and properly cite any references.
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, please review the following:
- From the text:
- Chapter 8: Pattern Evidence 1: General Patterns and Fingerprints
- Chapter 9: Pattern Evidence 2: Firearms, Tool Marks and Document Analysis
- From the free, downloadable resource at the web page Crime Scene Investigation Guide (Links to an external site.):
- Section D – Completing and Recording the Crime Scene Investigation
- Section E – Crime Scene Equipment
- The articles:
- From the free PDF copy at the web page Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009) (Links to an external site.):
- Section 10. Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems
- Section 11. Homeland Security and Forensic Science
- The video Forensic Science: Analysis of Drugs Using Colour Tests (Links to an external site.) shown above
- From the video Bodies, Blood, and Ballistics: Forensics School, Part One (Links to an external site.):
- Segment 2. Forensics: Blood Spatter 02:35
- Segment 5. Blood Spatter and Trajectories 04:35
- From the video Hands-On Police Work: Forensics School, Part Two (Links to an external site.):
- Segment 3. Crime Scene Photography 02:27
- Segment 6. How to Capture and Record Fingerprints 03:10
- Segment 8. Crime Scene Documentation 03:18
You are also strongly encouraged to review the list of recommended resources, as they may assist you with this assignment.
In your paper, address the following:
- Identify what types of evidence might be subjected to preliminary or field testing.
- Describe at least two types of testing that might be done on scene.
- Differentiate between why some evidence can and should be subjected to preliminary testing on scene, while other types should not.
- Explain how the on-scene test compares to laboratory testing.
- Compare and contrast the results yielded by preliminary field versus laboratory testing.
- Compare and contrast the admissibility of on-scene versus laboratory testing at trial.
The Difference Between Preliminary Field and Laboratory Testing paper
99
Chapter 8
Handwriting Comparison
Comparison of handwriting samples, or questioned document examination as its practitioners call it, was an early form of identification and is one of the oldest types of forensic evidence. It broadly involves the comparison of documents and printing and writing to identify persons who are the source of the writing, to reveal alterations, or to identify the source of typewritten marks.1 This chapter focuses primarily on handwriting analysis. The science is based on "the asserted ability to determine the authorship vel non of a piece of handwriting by examining the way in which the letters are inscribed, shaped and joined, and comparing it to exemplars of a putative author's concededly authentic handwriting."2 Handwriting examiners claim that no two people write alike and that no one person writes the same way twice.3 They argue, therefore, that no two writings are ever identical.4 Although it was offered in courts even before the twentieth century, it was not widely accepted as scientific evidence until it became part of the cornerstone of the prosecution case in State v. Hauptmann, the Lindbergh kidnapping case.5
In America, the handwriting analysis system was developed and promoted by Albert S. Osborne in the early 1900s and it has remained virtually unchanged since.6 After the Hauptmann case, it appears to have been almost unanimously accepted as reliable and admissible.7 As with several other such routinely accepted types of forensic scientific evidence, Daubert has led scientists and the courts to reexamine questions of the reliability and admissibility of handwriting comparison expert testimony.
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
100 Forensic Science Evidence
Questioned Document Principles and Procedures
Handwriting analysis involves the comparison of a questioned item with an item of known origin. Certain requirements must be met before a handwriting comparison can be made.8 The writing must be of the same type (e.g., handwritten or hand printed) and the text must be of a comparable sort (e.g., similar letter and word combinations). Special situations involve forgery, which is an attempt to imitate another's writing, and disguise, which is an attempt to change writing style to prevent identification. The bases for comparison are the features or attributes that are common to both samples. The characteristics of the writings are also identified as class characteristics (the style that the writer was taught), individual characteristics (the writer’s personal style), and other gross or subtle characteristics. The attributes used for comparison of handwriting are twenty one so-called discriminating elements.9 The comparison is based on the principal that, although individuals have variations within their own writing, no two persons write the same way. The analysis compares variability among writers and variability within a single person's writing, as shown in the samples. Determining that two samples were written by the same person means concluding that the degree of variability is more consistent with individual writing variations than with variations between two different persons.
Beyond these basic principles there is no dispute and no claim that there is an identified or accepted system for analyzing handwriting, and that the analysis and conclusions are subjective evaluations made by handwriting examiners.10 The emphasis, therefore, has been on training and testing persons to be considered handwriting experts. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has developed a number of standards.11 The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners is a trade organization that provides for certification.12 Although that organization requires an undergraduate degree in some field, there is no formal educational or training requirement otherwise, and most handwriting analysts are trained in forensic laboratories.
D. Michael Risinger summed up the contentions of the handwriting analysts as follows:
Handwriting identification experts believe they can examine a specimen of adult handwriting and determine whether the
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Handwriting Comparison 101
author of that specimen is the same person as or a different person than the author of any other example of handwriting, as long as both specimens are of sufficient quality and not separated by years or the intervention of degenerative disease. They further believe that they can accomplish this result with great accuracy, and that they can do it much better than an average literate person attempting the same task. They believe they can obtain these accurate findings as the result of applying an analytical methodology to the examination of handwriting, according to certain principles which are reflected in the questioned documents literature. They believe that this literature explains how to examine handwriting for identifying characteristics, and that by applying the lessons taught by this literature in connection with their experiences in various training exercises and in real world problems, they learn to identify handwriting dependably.13
Risinger and others disagree and express significant scientific concerns with handwriting analysis testimony.
Scientific Concerns with Handwriting Analysis Testimony
The basic principles of handwriting analysis are generally accepted as plausible scientific hypotheses. However, scientists point out that this plausibility is based on intuition rather than scientifically established evidence. They point out that these conclusions are accepted as axiomatic by handwriting examiners when they have never been thoroughly tested using scientific methods.14 Determining whether each person's handwriting is truly unique would necessitate a study of a large number of randomly chosen persons and the categorization and measurement of the multitude of possible variations.15 There are no standardized measurements and there is not even a public record of handwriting samples which can be scientifically used to develop such measurements or to test the basic underlying theories of handwriting analysis.16 No formal empirical testing has been completed.17 The scant studies which have been undertaken do not provide statistical support for uniqueness.18
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
102 Forensic Science Evidence
Criticism of the claimed expertise of handwriting examiners is more intense and has been the subject of heated debate among scholars and scientists. In 1989, D. Michael Risinger and two other law professors published the results of their literature search which asserted that there was no reliable study that established that document examiners can accurately identify or exclude authorship by handwriting comparison.19 The conclusion was hotly disputed by handwriting examiner organizations, but no contrary study was found.20
The Forensic Sciences Foundation designed and administered handwriting examiner proficiency tests for government crime laboratories. The original tests were criticized as non-scientific because they were administered only to a select group of volunteer laboratories and did not use original documents.21 The 1975 tests resulted in 89% of the laboratories correctly identifying the writer of a specimen letter.22 The proficiency tests were again undertaken in 1984 and 74% of the responding 23 volunteer laboratories reached the correct result.23 Tests in 1985, 1986 and 1987 revealed correct identification in only 41%, 13%, and 52%, respectively, of the responses.24 The examiner organization disputes the interpretation of these results.25 Two subsequent Forensic Sciences Foundation tests were administered in 1987 and 1989. Risinger interpreted the unpublished 1987 test results as showing that 94% to 97% of the "easy" identifications were correctly made by the respondents, while only 41% of the "harder" identifications were correctly made.26 Risinger interpreted the unpublished 1989 results as showing that 41% of respondents made false positive identifications.27
In 1994, the FBI sponsored handwriting examiner proficiency studies, which were conducted by Professor Moshe Kam and his colleagues. The first study was designed to test whether a small group of FBI document examiners could more correctly identify handwriting authors than a group of college students with no handwriting training. The results showed overwhelmingly good results by the trained examiners "indicating that handwriting identification expertise exists."28 Subsequently, Kam and his colleagues designed a proficiency test and administered it to professional examiners, trainees, and laypersons. The results were only published in the aggregate but Kam claimed that the results "lay to rest the debate over whether or not the professional document examiners possess writer-identification skills absent in the general population,"29 However, the study still showed
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Handwriting Comparison 103
that the professional erroneously declared an identification in 6.5% of the cases.30 There were significant criticisms of the study31 and a further study was conducted by Kam and colleagues in 1998 to explain the effect that monetary incentives may have had on the test results.32 One final Kam study was undertaken which most closely approximated a typical identification task and compared results between professional examiners and laypersons. The reported results indicated that trained examiners performed significantly better in identifying the genuiness of signatures than laypersons and that the error rates exhibited by the professionals were much smaller than those of the laypersons.33
A study examining proficiency in determining the genuiness of signatures was conducted in 2002 and found that professional examiners were wrong in 3.4% of the cases.34 Perhaps the most significant scientific advancement in handwriting analysis legitimacy comes from a recent study funded by the Department of Justice. Professor Sargar Srihari and his colleagues collected handwriting samples from 1568 persons and analyzed them using computer algorithms to extract common features.35 They concluded that the computer was able to distinguish writers with a high degree of confidence.36 This scientific method may lead to a much more definitive scientific basis for the expertise claimed in handwriting analysis.
The NAS report found value in handwriting comparison testimony but recommended further scientific study:
The scientific basis for handwriting comparisons needs to be strengthened. Recent studies have increased our understanding of the individuality and consistency of handwriting and computer studies and suggest that there may be a scientific basis for handwriting comparison, at least in the absence of intentional obfuscation or forgery. Although there has been only limited research to quantify the reliability and replicability of the practices used by trained document examiners, the committee agrees that there may be some value in handwriting analysis.37
Handwriting Analysis under Daubert
Daubert started a reevaluation of handwriting testimony which led to even more inquiries after Kumho. Some courts are no longer so sure
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
104 Forensic Science Evidence
about the admissibility of handwriting analysis evidence. In the pre- Kumho case of United States v. Starzecpyzel38 the court held an extensive Daubert hearing on the reliability of handwriting comparison evidence. After a detailed analysis, the judge rejected the claim that handwriting analysis has a scientific basis and stated that “Were the Court to apply Daubert to the proffered FDE [forensic document examiner] testimony, it would have to be excluded. This conclusion derives from a straightforward analysis of the suggested Daubert factors — testability and known error rate, peer review and publication, and general acceptance."39 However, the judge went on to hold that "while scientific principles may relate to aspects of handwriting analysis, they have little or nothing to do with the day-to-day tasks performed by FDEs" and that because it is not a "science," handwriting expert testimony is not subject to the Daubert requirements.40 He allowed the handwriting expert to testify as a technical or experience based expert.41
After Kumho, in United States v. Fujii, an American court excluded handwriting analysis testimony for the first time since the Lindbergh case,42
and it was followed in United States v. Saelee.43 While other courts have begun to express some reservations, they have not excluded handwriting analysis testimony altogether. Even when the testimony about handwriting comparison is far from conclusive, some courts have allowed it as being helpful to the jury.44 Notwithstanding the doubts about the scientific basis for handwriting comparison testimony, courts have still found it admissible for the most part. In 2003, the Fourth Circuit expressly ruled that handwriting comparison testimony was admissible under Daubert in United States v. Crisp.45 The Court there held that "The fact that handwriting comparison analysis has achieved widespread and lasting acceptance in the expert community gives us the assurance of reliability that Daubert requires. Furthermore, as with expert testimony on fingerprints, the role of the handwriting expert is primarily to draw the jury's attention to similarities between a known exemplar and a contested sample.”46 The Court seemed to almost abdicate the "gatekeeper" role for trial judges when it concluded that "To the extent that a given handwriting analysis is flawed or flimsy, an able defense lawyer will bring that fact to the jury's attention, both through skillful cross-examination and by presenting expert testimony of his own."47 In United States v. Mooney,48 the 1st Circuit reached a similar result without much
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Handwriting Comparison 105
explanation. For the most part, courts have continued, on one basis or another, to allow handwriting comparison testimony, although the testimony of particular witnesses has been excluded.49
Much like fingerprint testimony, the court system appears reluctant to actually apply a Daubert analysis to handwriting evidence which has been a standard tool in the prosecution's evidence arsenal for such a long time. It may well take a highly publicized post conviction DNA exoneration of a person who was convicted based on handwriting examiner testimony to change the trend. In the meantime, however, the good news is that the handwriting examiner community appears to be taking its scientific obligations more seriously and seeking to establish a true scientific basis for the claimed expertise. The principal prospect for such evidence may lie in recent efforts to use computer analysis to compile reliable databases of handwriting samples and quantifiable features and characteristics.
1 National Research Council of the National Academies, Strengthening
Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009), p. 163 2 Risinger, D. Michael, Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific
Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) at §§34.1, et seq at 453; see also Morris, Ron N., Forensic Handwriting Identification: Fundamental Concepts And Principles 129-42 (2000).
3 Risinger, D. Michael, Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) at, §34:12, at 569.
4 Id.. 5 State v. Hauptmann, 180 A. 809, 822 (N.J. 1935). 6 See Risinger, D. Michael , Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific
Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) §34:3, at 455-459; Lyssitzyn, Christine Beck, Forensic Evidence in Court: A Case Study Approach (2007), at 247.
7 Moriarty, Jane Campbell & Michael J. Saks, Forensic Science: Grand Goals, Tragic Flaws, and Judicial Gatekeeping, Judges’ J., Fall 2005, p. 16, 21 (2005); Risinger, D. Michael , Handwriting Identification, in Modern
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
106 Forensic Science Evidence
Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009- 2010 edition) §34:3, at at 455-459; Risinger, D. Michael, Mark P. Denbeaux & Michael J. Saks, Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification “Expertise”, 137 U. Pa. L. Rev. 731 (1989).
8 National Research Council of the National Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009), pp. 165-166.
9 Huber, Roy A. and A. M. Headrick, Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals (1999).
10 See Risinger, D. Michael, Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) §34:3, at 455-459; Lyssitzyn, Christine Beck, Forensic Evidence in Court: A Case Study Approach (2007), at 249.
11 See, e.g., Standard Descriptions of Scope of Work Relating to Forensic Document Examiners, ASTM E444-09 (2009); Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners, ASTM E1658 – 08 (2008); Standard Guide for Minimum Training Requirements for Forensic Document Examiners, ASTM E2388 – 05 (2005).
12 American Board of Forensic Examiners, online at http://www.abfde.org/Index.html (last visited December 14, 2011).
13 Risinger, D. Michael, Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) §34.10 at 563-564, citing Albert S. Osborne, Questioned Documents 6 (2d ed. 1929); and Ellen, David, The Scientific Examination of Documents: Methods and Techniques 9 (1989).
14 Id., at 568-569. 15 Lyssitzyn, Christine Beck, Forensic Evidence in Court: A Case Study
Approach (2007), at 251. 16 Saks, Michael J. and Holly VanderHaar, On the "General Acceptance" of
Handwriting Identification Principles, 50 J. Forensic. Sci. 119 (2005). 17 Risinger, D. Michael , Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific
Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) §34.14 at 579.
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Handwriting Comparison 107
18 R. J. Muehlberger, et al, A Statistical Examination of Selected Handwriting
Characteristics, 22 J. For. Sci. 206 (1977); Srihari, Sargur N., Sung-Hyuk Cha, Hina Arora, Sangjik Lee, Individuality of Handwriting: A Validation Study, Sixth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, ICDAR'01, (2001), available online at http://www.cedar.buffalo.edu/papers/articles/Individuality_Handwriting_200 1.pdf (last visited December 14, 2011).
19 Risinger, D. Michael , Mark P. Denbeaux, and Michael J. Saks, Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification "Expertise", 137 U. Pa. L. Rev. 731 (1989).
20 Galbraith, Oliver, Craig Galbraith, and Nanette Galbraith, The "Principle of the Drunkard's Search" as a Proxy for Scientific Analysis: The Misuse of Handwriting Test Data in a Law Journal Article, 1 Int'l J. Forensic Document Examiners 7 (1995). For a full discussion of the ensuing debate, see Risinger, D. Michael , Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) §34.14, at 581-643.
21 Risinger, D. Michael, Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) §34.14 et seq.
22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Galbraith, Oliver, Craig Galbraith, and Nanette Galbraith, The "Principle of
the Drunkard's Search" as a Proxy for Scientific Analysis: The Misuse of Handwriting Test Data in a Law Journal Article, 1 Int'l J. Forensic Document Examiners 7 (1995).
26 Risinger, D. Michael , Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) §34.14 et seq.
27 Id. 28 Kam, Moshe J., Wetstein, and R. Conn, Proficiency of Professional
Document Examiners in Writer Identification, 39 J. For. Sci. 5 (1994),
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
108 Forensic Science Evidence
abstract available online at http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/ abstract.aspx?ID=146638 (last visited December 14, 2011).
29 Kam, Moshe, G. Fielding and Robert Conn, Writer Examination by Professional Document Examiners, 42 J. For. Sci. 778 (1997).
30 Id. 31 The criticisms included the use of monetary incentives for the layperson
subjects, aggregation of results, and other concerns. See Risinger, D. Michael , Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) §34.29.
32 Kam, Moshe, Gabriel Fielding and Robert Conn, Effects of Monetary Incentives on Performance in Document Examination Proficiency Tests, 43 J. For. Sci. 1000 (1997).
33 Kam, Moshe, K. Gummadidala, G. Fielding, and R. Conn, Signature Authentication by Forensic Document Examiners, 46 J. For. Sci. 884 (2001).
34 Sita, J,, B. Found and D. Rogers, Forensic Handwriting Examiners' Expertise for Signature Comparison, 47 J. Forensic Sci. 1117 (2002).
35 Srihari, Sargur N., Sung-Hyuk Cha, Hina Arora & Sangjik Lee, Individuality of Handwriting, 47 J. Forensic Sci. 856, 871 (2002).
36 Id. 37 National Research Council of the National Academies, Strengthening
Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009), pp. 166-167. 38 United States v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027, 42 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 247
(S.D. N.Y. 1995). 39 Id. 40 Id. 41 Id. The distinction was later rejected in Kumho. 42 United States v. Fujii, 152 F. Supp.2d 939, 942 (N.D. Ill. 2000). The Court
held that "[c]onsidering the questions about handwriting analysis generally under Daubert, the lack of any evidence that the identification of handprinting is an expertise that meets the Daubert standards and the questions that have been raised, which the government has not attempted to answer, about its expert's ability to opine reliably on handprinting identification in dealing with native Japanese writers taught English printing in Japan, the court grants the defendant's motion."
43 United States v. Saelee, 162 F. Supp.2d 1097 (D. Alaska 2001). In a broader decision than Fujii, the Saelee Court found that the government could not
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Handwriting Comparison 109
establish that handwriting identification was "the product of reliable methods".
44 United States v. Hines, 55 F. Supp.2d 62, 67-68 (D. Mass. 1999) (holding that expert testimony about general similarities and differences between the evidentiary sample and defendant's exemplar was admissible but that the expert could not testify to the conclusion that the defendant was the author because it lacked empirical validation); People v. Todmann, 2010 WL 684009 (V.I. 2010) (upholding a trial judge's exclusion of handwriting testimony that the defendant "may have" signed the document because it was "far too speculative to be of any assistance to the jury, and will most likely mislead the jurors"). Cf. Miller v. State, ___A.3d ___, 2011 WL 4363938 (Md. 2011) (allowing ambiguous testimony that a comparison of handwriting samples showed characteristics "which prevents [defendant's] elimination as a suspect in this case").
45 United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2003). 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 United States v. Mooney, 315 F.3d 54, 60 Fed. Evid. Serv. 60 (1st Cir. 2002). 49 See, e.g., United States v. Brooks, 81 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 381 (E.D. N.Y.
2010). For an extremely detailed description of post-Daubert cases dealing with handwriting comparison, see Risinger, D. Michael , Handwriting Identification, in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, eds. David L. Faigman, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders, and Edward K. Cheng, (2009-2010 edition) at §§34.4 -34.9.
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1057854. Created from ashford-ebooks on 2022-04-18 17:40:46.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 2 . L F
B S
ch o la
rl y
P u b lis
h in
g L
L C
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Shelton, Donald E.. Forensic Science Evidence : Can the Law Keep Up with Science, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.