Westlavu ‘88 AMIUR POF 3d 195 Page 1 ‘88 Am. Jut. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) ‘American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts 3d Database updated August 2009 Categorical List of Articles Proof of the Identification of Paper in Lit ation[2] Patricia L. Proebsting, J.D. and Monique CM. Leshy[**] Topie of Article: This article discusses the composition of paper, How paper is manufactured, the numerous way’ in which paper can be accurately identified and the use of paper as evidence. The article also discusses evidentiary issues pertinent to proving the identification of paper. Model discovery is presented including a checklist for the examination of a questioned document, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories. I provides proofs fer the chain of custody of paper, the qualification of an expert document examiner, the procedures followed by an expert examining paper, the provenance and age of paper by means of the paper's watermark, the substitution of pages in @ document, {he identification of paper by perforations, and the opening ofan envelope, ARTICLE OUTLINE in RS ‘1 Paper ‘§2 Evolution of paver It ILIDENTIFICATION OF PAPER ‘A Composition of Paper ‘$3 Cellulose fibers §4 Cellulose fibers—Cotton {5 Cellulose ftere—Linen £§6.Cellslose fibers —Hemp ‘$7 Cellulose fbers—Espartp straw: bamboo grass $B Cellulose fibers—Iute {$9 Cellulose fers —Kenaf 4110 Cellolose fibers — Wood pulp 11 Sypthetie fibers ‘B The Manufacturing Process ‘$12 In general $13 Surface properties ‘s1asizng $15 Watermarks © Specialty Paper ‘$17 Ingenera $18 Carbon paper ‘$19 Carbon paper—Sinale-uce earbon £20 Carbon papor—Typewriter earbon ‘$21 Carbon paper—Pen and pencil carbon $22 Carbonless paper ($23 Safety paper D Methods of ldenifving Paper ‘$24 1n general ‘$25 Chemical tests © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 2 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) $26 Identification dough alterations 2: 5c ugh alterations—Particular alteration method used ‘$28 Identification throweh alterations—Mechanical eradication {$29 Identification through alterations —Chemieal eradication ‘$30 Folds and impressions in altered document 3 ‘and smudges ‘$32 Holes. rips. and tears $33 Perforations and cuts ‘$34 Detecting age or date of document ‘5.35 Artificially aged instruments ‘$136 Detecting removal from sealed envelope ‘$37 In general 8.38 Handling by experts ‘$39 In gonoral 40 Admissibitity: parol evidence §4] Weight; sufficiency of evidence $42 Authentication ‘§.43 Ancient documents $44 Best evidence ‘$45 Expert opinion testimony IV MODEL DISCOVERY 46 Examination of questioned document; checklist -47 Requests for production of documents, generally ‘§48 Illustrative requests for production of documents by plaintiff to defendant {$49 Illustrative interrogatories V_PROOFS OF IDENTIFICATION OF PAPER, {§.50 Proof of document chain of custody. 31 Proof of document chain of custody—Ilustrative cases ‘§.52 Proof of the qualification of an expert document examiner £53 Proof of the qualification of an expect document oxaminer—Testimony of forensic document examiner | (8.55 Proof af procedure followed by an expert examining naper ‘§.56 Testimony of document examiner regarding examination of questioned document § 57 Testimony of document examiner regarding examjnation of questioned document— Mluseative eases {$58 Proof of document's provenance and age by means af the papar’s watermark 59 Proof of documen’s co end age by means of the paper's watormark—Te ‘of paper chemist is venance and af means of the 1's Watermark—IIlv ive, sass ‘$61 Proof of substitution of pes in document ‘$62 Proof of substitution of pages in document—Testimony of document examiner {$63 Proof of substitution of pazes in document—Ilhustrative cases 6A Proof of identificat er by perforations 5 er ations —Te olice officer ‘$166 Proof of identification of paper by perforations—Testimony of arson investigator ‘§.68 Proof of identification of paper by perforations Illustrative cases ‘$169 Proof of opening of envelope ‘$10 Proof of opening of envelope—Testimany of examiner of questioned documents ‘$71 Proof of opening of envelope—illustrative cases ‘Researoh References © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Ciaim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 3d 195 88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) INDEX Admissibility generally, 8.40 ancient documents, authenticity of, § 43, ally aged instruments, methods of identifying paper, § 35, detection of age, methods of identifying paper, § 24 watermark, proof of document's provenance and age by means of, infra Alterations chemical eradication, $29 eradication, infra folds in altered document, § 30 ‘impressions in altered document, §30 smochanical eedication, §28 ‘methods of identifying paper, generally, $§20%029 parol evidence, §.40 safety paper, $23, ‘weight and sufficiency of evidence, § 41 Ancient Document Rule, § 43 ‘Arson investigator's testimony, § 66 “Artificially aged instruments, methods of identifying paper, £35 ‘Authenticity or authentication generally, § 42 admissibility, ancient documents, § 43 ‘Ancient Document Rule, § 43 checklist, examination of questioned document, § 46, ‘weight and sufficiency of evidence, § 41 Bamboo grass, composition of paper, § 7 Rast fiber jute, §8 linen, $5 est evidence rule, § 44 Blots, methods of id Burden of proof, § 41 Carbonless paper, § 22 Carbon paper generally, $818t021 ppen and pencil carbon, § 21 single-use carbon, § 19 typewriter carbon, §20 ing papor, $31. Cellulose bers bamboo grass, §7 chemical tests, § 25 ‘composition of peper, generally, §§3¢010 cotton, 64 esparto grass, § 7 evolution of paper, § 2 hemp, $6 jute, £8 Kenaf, $2 linea, &3 sxraw, 87 wood pulp, $10. ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Ciaim to Orig, US Gov. Works. Page 388 AMJUR POF 34 195 88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Chainlines, manufacturing process, 816 Chain of custody generally, § 50, illustrative cases, §.51 ‘Changes, Alterations, supra ‘Checklist, examination of questioned document, § 46 ‘Chemicals eradication, identification through chemical eradication, § 29 ‘methods of idemilying paper, chemical tests as, § 25 Composition of paper generally, §§3H0L1 cellulose fibers, supra synthetic fibers, §11 Cotton, composition of paper, §-4 Custody. Chain of custody, supra Cuts, methods of identifying paper, 833 Date of document, methods of identifying paper, 534 Detection age or date of document, 8.34 ‘examination of questioned document. Experts, infra sealed envelope, detecting removal from, § 36 Discovery generally, §§46t040 checklist, examination of questioned document, § 46 interrogatories, illustrative, £49 model discovery, zenerally, §$461049 production of documents request, generally, § 47 request fer production of documents, generally, § 47 Document examiner generally, §§56,57 checklist, examination of questioned document, §.46 envelope, proof of opening of, § 70 examination of questioned document, §56, forensic documont examiner, testimony of, § 53. illustrative cases, § 54 ‘qualification of expert document examiner, §§45,52t054 substitution of pages in document, proof of, § 62 testimony of, generally, $§45.521084 Envelope generally, 8369071 illustrative cases, § 71 proof of opening of, generally, §§69t071. sealed envelope, detecting removal from, § 36 teatimony of examiner of questioned documents, § 70 Eradication chemical eradication, identification through, § 29 ‘mechanical eradication, identification through, §28 Espato grass, composition of paper, §7 Bridentary sues, generally, §§394085 Evolution of paper, §2 Examination of questioned document. Experts, infra Experts document examiner, pra opinion testimony, $45 preservation of paper as evidence, handling by experts, § 38 © 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 488 AMJUR POF 34 195 £88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) procedure followed by expert examining paper, proof of, § 55 ‘production of documents requests, illustrative, § 48 Folds in altered document, § 30 Forensics evidentiary issues, generally, § 39 police forensics specialist's testimony, proof of identification of paper by perforations, § 67 qualification of oxpert document examiner, § 53 Handmade paper, chainlines, § 16 Hemp, composition of paper, £6 Herzberg stains, chemical tests, §25 “Hibiscus family, kenaf as member of, £9 Holes, methods of identifying paper, § 32 Impressions in altered document, § 30 Indelible ink pencil, § 28 Interrogatores, illustrative, §49 Jute, composition of paper, §8 ‘Kenaf, composition of paper, § Linen, composition of paper, 8 5 Magneto ink pencils, §28 Manufacturing process generally, §§12t016 chaintines, § 16 hemp, 6 ‘onaf, $9 sizing, $14 surface properties, §13 synthetic fibers, § LL watermarks, § 15 ‘wood pulp, $10 ‘Mechanical eradication, identification through, § 28 ‘Methods of identifying paper generally, 85241035 age of document, Age, supra alterations, supra aificially aged insuments, §35, blots, §31 chemical tests, $25, cuts, £33 dae of document, detection of, 834 detecting age ot date of document, §34 detecting removal from sealed envelope, § 36 ‘envelopes, detecting removal from sealed envelope, § 36 holes, $32 perforations, § 33 removal from scaled envelope, detection of, § 36 rips, $32 sealed envelope, detecting removal from, § 36 smears, §31 sumudges, $31 tears, §32 ‘Models or illustrations authentication, § 42 cchain of custody, §51, discovery, generally, §§46t049 document examiner, testimony of, §57 ©2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claitn to Orig. US Gov. Works. Pages88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 6 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) envelope, proof of opening of, §71. interrogatories, § 49 perforations, § 68 production of documents, requests for, § 48 qualification of expert document examiner, $54 substitution of pages in document, proof of, § 63 [NCR (earboness) paper, 22 Opening envelope, proof of. Envelope, supra ‘Page substitutions, Substitation of pages in document, proof of, infra Parol evidence, §40 en and pencil carbon paper, § 21. Pencils carbon paper, pencil carbon, § 21, magnetic ink pencils, §28 erforations arson investigator's testimony, § 66 illustrative cases, § 68 methods of identifying paper, §33. police, intra proof of identification of paper by perforations, generally, §§6St068 Police police forensics specialist's testimony, proof of identification of paper by perforations, §.67 police officer's testimony, proof of identification of paper by perforations, § 65 Preliminary matters, §§1.2 Preservation of paper as evidence generally, § 37 experts, handling by, 838 Production of documents request generally, § 47 illustrations, $48 service of process, § 47 Proofs of identification of paper, generally, §§S0te7 Provenance. Watermark, proof of document's provenance and age by means of, infa Qualification of expert document examiner. Document examiner, supra Relevancy, examination of questioned document, § 46 Rotioval fom sealed envelope, doteation of, $36 Request for production of documents, Production of documents request, supra Rips, methods of identifying paper, § 32 Safety paper, $23 Sealed envelope, detecting removal fom, §.36 Service of process, request for production of documents, §47 ‘Single-use carbon paper, § 19 Sizing, manufacturing process, 814 ‘Smears, methods of identifying paper, $31 Smudges, methods of identifying paper, §31 Specialty paper generally, §§171023 ‘carbonless paper, 8522 earbon paper, supra safety paper, $23 Straw, composition of paper, §7 Substitutlon of pages In document, proof of generally, §§61t063 illustrative cases, § 63 © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POP 34 195 Page 7 88 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) testimony of document examiner, § 62 Suificiency of evidence, $41 Surface properties, manufacturing process, $13 Synthetic bers, composition of paper, § 11 ‘Tears, methods of identifying paper, 32 ‘Testimony. Witnesses, infra ‘Tests, chemical texts as method of identifying paper, § 25 ‘Typewriter carbon paper, § 20 ‘Watermark, proof of documents provenance and age by means of generally, §§58t060 chemist, testimony of paper chemist, § 59 illustrative eases, § 60 ‘Watermarke manufacturing process, § 15 provenance and age of document. Watermark, proof of document's provenanes and age by means of, supra ‘Weight and sufficiency of evidence, § 41 ‘Witnesses document examiner, supra experts, supra police, supra ‘Wood pulp, composition of paper, § 10 1, PRELIMINARY MATTERS § 1. Paper Despite the ubiquity of computers, e-mail and the Internet, which were predicted to lead to a paperless society, paper remains the moct important means of modern communiation. Modem society uses paper for an infinite num- ber of purposes: as curreney and as decoration; as containers and as cleaning agents; as lampshades and as ypepers Paper has thousands of industrial uses, ranging fTom its use in electronic tape to its use for wrapping goods. How- ver, the original pupose for which paper Was crested-—as a means of communicating and preserving information — remains its most important use. Paper is s0 important and prevalent that there are college programs and facilites dedicated to the study of paper, papermaking, and the pulp industry. For example, Columbia College Chieago and Georgia Institute of Technology have centers for the study of paper [1] ‘Tho author has included this and other URLs (Uniform Resource Locators or web addresses) to provide readers ‘with additional easily accessed resources for further review of the issues discussed. These web addresses should be copied into your browser's address window 10 access the referenced page. AS website addresses can change fre- quently, you may receive a page not found or other error as the URL for the referenced page may have changed since this article's publication. If you find the referenced page is no longer available, please truncate the address until ‘you are taken to a page from which the matetlal may bc found in its new location. In addition, there are museums specializing in paper such 2s the Robert C. Williams American Museum of Fapermaking, an intemationally re~ owned resource on the history of paper and paper technology. (2) Also, there are professional societies such as the ‘American Society of Questioned Document Examiners who foster education, research, and standards including the ‘understanding of paper and its properties regarding questioned documents.(3] Paper, and its identification, becomes an issue in litigation in many ways. Wills, deeds, contracts, checks, and receipts are constantly being challenged, as Is he validity of stock certificates, bonds, money orders, and many other instruments. For various reasons, the authenticity of a rare book or manuscript is frequently questioned. And in bot criminal and eivil eases, paper is used to connect partionlar persons with particular acts or places. Even in the elec~ tronic, digitized 21st century, paper is still extremely important for communication and maintaining permanent re- (© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 8 £88 Ama, Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) cords. Tn addition, the manufacture of paper may give rise to personal injury lawsuits, environmental issues, and tax considerations, among other concems, that may result in litigation. For example, ashestosis eases may result from ‘work at a papermaking facility [4] Environmental eoncems regarding papermaking chemicals in ground water or in Tandfills have been litigated,[5} The taxing of the chemicals used in the papermaking process has beon consid- ‘ered {6] Because these topics generally do not involve the identification of paper, they are not discussed in detall in this article §2. Evolution of paper ‘The term “paper” is derived from the Greek word "papyrus," the name given to a type of reed that was sonked ia Tiquid, beaten, and woven by the ancient Egyptians into a form of paper. Although no one really Knows witen paper ‘was frst invented, credit for its discovery is generally given to the Chinese who. in the second century B.C., devel- ‘ped a practical method of making a relatively uniform and flexibic type of paper. Under the Chinese method, loose cellulose fibers were mixed witha large quantity of water and then allowed to seite and "felt" (ic., adhere and mat together) on a mold of closely woven cloth. After the water had drained off through the cloth, the matted fibers were ‘pressed into sheets of paper. Later on, ao the Chinese progressed with their at, special molds were used in the press- ‘ng process. These molds were made of extremely thin strips of bamboo and were held together by silk threads. The use of these molds caused the finished product fo possess numerous fine lines. A variation of this manufacturing, ‘process ie cil used today to make a type of fine paper that is called “laid paper. In AD 105, a Chinese court official Elaimed to have invented papermaking by using rags of ol cloth. This was paper modem people would recog- nize{1) Chinese papermaking techniques spread to Korea and Japan by the early seventh century. About 700 AD. knowledge of papermaking was learned by cultures in Central Asia, Tibet, India and the Middle East. Eyentualy, after various improvements by the Persians and other Islamic peoples, the art was finally brought to Europe, via Spain, during the Moorish conquests of the 12th century. From the 13th century on, the Italians improved the proc- 53 by developing processes for the use of waler power, the stamping mill (derived from the stampers and milling ‘machines used in textile handicrafts), the mold made of wire mesh (as a result of progress in wire production), which triggered the introduction of eouching on felt, the paper press (screw press) with slides for feeding in the material, drying the sheets on ropes and dip sizing [2] In she 18th century, the need for increased production of paper and the desire to circumvent the papermakers! labor guilds resulted in the design and construction of a variety of paper-making machines. These machines evolved the ability to fll wire molds transported on an endless chain and couched the shects on continuous felt and a section to dry the sheets.[3] ‘Mach later, about 1800, the first continuous roll of paper was manufactured by @ Frenchman, Louis Robert ‘During the interval between that time and the present, the art of paper making has become increasingly refined and, diverse, 30 as to meet the needs of complex and ever growing society. By 1860 all of the work sequences for manufacturing paper were mechanized: the rag preparation, use of fillers, pulp beating, forming the paper and finish- ing. Between 1840 and 1880 the use of rags was replaced by industrial scale wood and chemical pulps, creating new kkinds of mills. Between 1860 and 1950 papermaking machines were designed to use electricity, and production speeds greatly increased. Between 1950 and 1980 further increases in wes width and production speeds occurred as new matenals were being developed to make paper, such as thermo-mechanical pulp, deinked recycled paper, 20%" fillers, processed chemicals and dyes. In addition, there was a greater sensitivity 10 the environment and improved ‘automation, Since 1980 sheet-forming principles and chemical milp processes have been improved [4] Despite the use of electronic digital data es the primary communication medium in the 21st eentary, the use of paper is not ex: ‘pected to end. Paper continues to offer the easiest, most convenient and durable option for storing data over long, periods of time} IDENTIFICATION OF PAPER © 2030 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195, Page 9 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) A. Composition of Paper § 3. Cellulose fibers ‘Whether its fancy wrapping paper or cheap note paper, and whether it was made by hand a J,000 years ago or by a machine today, paper is nevertheless essentially the same thing: an artificial arrangement of ccliulose fibers pressed into thin felted sheets. Cellulose, io tum, is made of a kind of sugar ghucose and is used by plants to build cell walls. Cellulose cells in varying forms, ave found in numerous grasses, shrubs, plants, and wees, mauy of which arc readily adaptable to the manufacture of paper. As a general rule, these cells ate tubular in shape and have porous outer walls. Although the shape of the cells tends to be uniform, the fibrous materials in which they are found differ in siz, shape, and texture, depending on the type of fiber involved. This enables the trained investigator to identify the various components in a sheet of paper and 9 difereate i from others of similar appearance. Cellulose has inherent properties that cause ito create a mesh that can become a sheet of paper: (0) hydrophilicity (readily dispersable in water); Q) fibrillation (the forming of fibers); G) sufficient fiber length to form a mesh of significant strength; and (6) te silty to form hydrogen bonds between the bers asthe mesh dries, hos mereesing the stengh of he paper] ‘The first step in making paper is to reduce the raw material—whether raw cotton (already relatively pure), rags, or wood—to a workable state, so as to free the cellulose fibers from the other carbohydrates and organic matter as- sociated with them. The fibers themselves then must be separated and sometimes even individual fibers must be split, so that they can be suspended in liquid prior to setling on the mod. Cotton and linen are commonly used celluloses because they are relatively easy to separate from the other raw organic manter present. The same is true of hemp and ramie fibers. This group of fibers is considered hydrolytic be- cause when they are immersed in water a weak acid forms in combination with the water ions (.e., electrically charged atoms). This acid helps to separate the fibers into a pure state without impairing the fiber strength. Paper ‘made from this group of fibers tends to be quite permanent and hence is, for many purposes, the most valuable rype of paper. Another major group of fibers, called “oxycelluloses,” consists of straw, esparto grasses, and bamboo grasses. ‘This group is not as stable as the first group, since these fibers tend to break down further under chemical attack. However, these fibers are stil strong enough to produce paper of high quality. A farther graup of fibers, called "lignocelluloses," is comprised of rave jute fibers and fibers from various kinds of wood. Lignocellulose is composed of three basic kinds of cellulose: alpha (similar to the cellulose in cotton), beta, and gamma (which is also present in the grasses of the second group). However, both bets and gamma cellulose tend to break down under hydrolysis, and their presence in paper isthe chief cause ofits rapid deterioration. Lignin are the glues that hold plant ces together. If they remain inthe extlulose pulp, the paper produced will age poorly, tum brown, become acidic and cause the cellulose fibers to resist bonding. If lignins are not removed ‘rom the cellulose fibers used in paper, the acidity will cause the cellulose to break down and the paper becomes brittle. Wood is composed of 20 to 30 percent lignins, while cotion is only one percent lignins. Thus papers madc of ‘wood discolor and eventually self-destruct [2] ‘The following sections discuss the types of cellulose fibers.[3] ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34195, Page 10 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) § 4. Cellulose fibers—Cotton Cotton grows in the form of botls, which are made up of mumerous cottonseeds surrounded by, and attached to, {nch-long pure callulos fibers. When the cotton is mature, the relatively large canal down the center ofthe eel dries up and the cell deflates, becoming twisted in the process. The bolls of cotton are then picked and run through a co! ton gin, which rips the fibers from the seeds. It is then an industrial practice to run the defibered seeds tarough @ ‘machine called a “delinter," which palls loose the short hairs that the gin leaves attached to the seed. These short fibers arc then sold directly to paper manufacturers. Although cotton is the purest form of raw cellulose, iti 100 valuable and expensive to he used immediately, in quantity, in the mauufscture of paper. Consequently, it gocs Uhrough an interesting life eyele. First it is woven into fabric, dyed, cut and made into such objects as clothing and curtains, After they have been discarded, these cloth bjects are gathered and resold to paper imamufacturers, who use such material to make expensive and durable "rag- contont" paper. Because its fibers can pass and absorb large quantities of liquid, cotton isan exeellent stock or base for many industrial papers. Mixed with linen, itis also used to make high-quality drawing paper, photographic base paper, and certain kinds of stationery. {§ 5. Celhutose ners—Linen ‘Linen is a “bast" fiber (fiber obtained from the stem of plant or tree) that comes fiom the debarked stom ofthe flax plant. The process of removing linen fibers from their woody tissue {s called “retting,” and consists simply of leaving the cut stems in water until their bark rots off. The cell walls of linen fibers are thicker than those of cotton fbors, and their canal is narrower, thus making linen fibers somowhit stronger and more durable than cotton fibers. However, like cotton, linen fibers are far too valuable to be used directly forthe manufacture of paper. Thus, ey go through the same eycte of being first used as cloth and then being gathered, inthe form of rags, for ultimate use as paper. Linen fibers are rounded or polygonal and appear to be knotted or jointed at intervals, with striations along {eis length that are attributed to the action of wind on the plants, These fibers have two natural ends, which taper to fine points, and the carefully split fibers will “fet” (adhere and mat together) extremely Well; this gives grest tough ‘ness to paper made from these fibers, Linen paper is used for currency and forthe printing of bonds and stock certificates. It is also used for cigarette paper, fine drawing paper, certain tissue and tracing paper, vellum (a type of paper that resembles parchment), and certain kinds of industrial paper. '§ 6. Cellulose fibers Hemp ‘The hemp fiber that is used to make paper is usually obtained from rope ends. It is almost as high in quality as Jinen and is used for many of the purposes for which linen is used. ‘True hemp is no longer used with any great frequeney in the manufacture of paper. One reason for this is the scarcity and expense of natural hemp. A further reason, parhaps, is that natural hemap, When properly cured, becomes ‘marijuana, hashish, bhang, or potaguya. The Gutenberg Bible (15th Century), The King James Bible (17th Century), ‘he first and second drafts ofthe Declaration of Independence, andthe original works of Mark Twain, Victor Hugo, ‘Alexander Dumes, Lewis Carroll, and Thomas Paine were all printed on hemp-based papers [] From the farm field to the pulp mill, hemp fiber offers considerable environmental advantages. Because hemp grows rapidly and germinates in early spring, it out-competes most weed species, greatly reducing, and often elimi- Dating, the need for hesbicides. Its natural resistance to most pests also reduces the need for pesticides. Thus it helps to protect the water table from chemical contamination. [2} Compared to wood, hemp can also be pulped more efficiently and with fewer environmental impacts. When modem pulping processes and technologies aré used, up to 80% of unprocessed hemp can be converted to pulp compared with an average of 43% for wood. This fact, along with hemp's high fier yield, means that up to four ‘acres of forest can be spared for every aero of homp grown annually. Additionally, hemp's lignin content (the "glue © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 3d 195 Page 1 88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) like" substance that must be removed during processing) ranges ftom only 3% Inthe bark to around 20% in the core fs compared to 30% for pine. Lower lignin translates into fewer chemicals and less energy required during the pulp- ing process. Furthermore, hemp fibers are naturally whiter than wood and thus require less bleaching to achieve ‘comparable brightness, Highly polluting chlorine-ased techniques can be readily replaced with more benign proe- esses using oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, or ozone [3] {§7. Cellulose Sibers—Esparto; straw; bamboo grass Esparto grass is another important source of cellulose fibers. There ate two types or varities ofthis grass, the ‘Spanish and the African, Of the Wo, the Spanish variety bas been considered superior. grasses have short curved fibers, a uaow canal, and a comma shaped seed hair cell These fibers are bulky and relatively opaque. Esparto fibers are comparatively weak, and peper made from tiem tends to be “greasy.” ‘To counteract this "greasiness,” wood pulp is often added to the esparto fibers, Esparto paper often contains 83 per cent exparto pulp, the rest being wood eulfite pulp. Since esparto fiber has suitable expansion and contraction prop- erties, itis extremely Valuable for various types of printing paper, including lettor press, offtet, and lithographic printing, Straw fiber, although similar to esparto in many Ways, is not as opaque as esparto. However, straw fiber also re- ‘quires the addition of wood pulp for strength, During World War I, many localities that were cut off ftom: exparto ‘ised straw fiber instead. Although paper made from straw has hardness and “snap,” it also has folding and tearing, (qualities. Still, iis herder than esparto and has a "rotle” that makes it suitable for bank notes and honds ‘Bamboo fibers aro used extensively for paper in Eastern countries, particulary in India, These fibers are like the ‘bers of ather grasses, except that they teod to be somewhat longer. The uses of bamboo-fiber paper are similar to ‘the uses to which other grassfiber papers are put. §8. Cellutose fibers—sute Jute is a long bast fiber which is obtained from the Corchorus capsularis and the Corchorus olitorius, two woody plants that are grown largely in India, Jute fibers possess great tensile strength, despite the fact that jute is = ‘member of the lignocellulose group. ‘The walls of jute fiber ceils, like those of hemp cells, are thick around a narrow canal that is of uneven widt and possesses wide, splayed ends, Like all bast fibers, jute fibers will split along their length with careful beating, However, since large amounts of foreign matter cannot be eliminated without injury to the cellulose in jute fibers, it fs difficult to bleach these fibers to @ pure white color. Paper made from jute fiber, therefore, is chiefly used as ‘wrapping paper, rope-brown paper, and for certain other industrial purposes. § 9. Cellulose fibers—Kenar Kenaf, a momber of the hibiscus family, is an annual, non-wood fiber plant native to central Africa. Kenaf is ‘more productive per acre than tees, uscs less energy to make paper and the manufscturing process is more environ- ‘mentally friendly than paper made from wood pulp. Kenaf paper is stronger, whiter, longer lasting, more resistant to yellowing, and has better ink adherence then tree paper.{1] § 10. Cellulose fibers—Wood pulp Wood pulp fibers are used more extensively in the mamufacture of paper than any other type of fiber. Different ‘kinds of wood pulp are classified according to the manner in which they are reduced to pulp fom a bulk stat. "Me- chanical" wood pulp, for example, is frst gronnd into a fine powder and then suspended in liquid. “Chemical” wood pulp, on the other hand, is separated into fibers by the addition of various chemical agents to a coarser ground matt- rial. Mechanical wood pulp is principally used for newsprint and similar cheap stock papers. Chemical wood pulp, © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195, Page 12 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) however, depending on is treatment, Is used in almost everything ese that can be called paper § 11. Synthetic bers Ja 1985, papers ftom nylon, Dacron, and Orlon fibers, and from blends of these fibers with wood pulp were ‘manufactured. These papers are produced on conventional papermaking machinery and can be made with a range of appearances and characteristics, from crisp stock resembling ordinary paper to drapabe, febrie-like mat ale. Because of their unique properties, synthetic fiber papers have many applications for which ordinary paper is ‘unsuitable, notably ae electrical insulation, filtration material in air-conditioning equipment, electrical tapes for sound recording, shoe fabrics, and intelining in clothing. {11 , The Manufacturing Process § 12. In general Since the mamufacture of paper involves many vastly complicated processes that are constantly being changed end improved, no attempt will be rade here to digcuss the paper-making industry as a whole. Instead, this article will consider only those aspects of paper manufacturing thet ere of value in identifying paper involved in ligation. In the production of any type of paper, the first step in its manufacture is the reduction to pulp of the base mate- tial, uch as cotton or linen rags, from which the necessary raw vegetable fibers are obtained. The next step is to ‘suspend this pulp in liquid in order to remove any impurities. Thereafter, the pulp Is placed on screen moKls to allow the vegetable fibers to settle evenly and uniformly, so that they can be “calendered” or rolled into sheets of paper. ‘During these processes, various chemicals and other raw materials are often added to create distiner types and quali- ‘tes of paper. Sometimes the process by which paper is manufactured is simple, os in the case of "mechanical" wood pulp; sometimes, it is complicated end exacting, as in the case of rags that must be beaten for hours, sized with clay, ‘bleached, and then put through various other processes. In all situations, however, the industrial processes are care- fully regulated in onder to leave as litle as possible to chance, and every step of each process is chemically tested. ‘Because of tis planning in the manufacturing process, a given piece of paper can be identified nat only by its raw ‘brous material, but also by is other elements, including forcign matter and special physical properties. “The acidity of paper isa significant factor in detenmining the paper's pertmancuce. The more acidic the paper is, the faster the cellulose will decompose. Wood pulp papers are much more sensitive to acid-causing conditions than cotton or linen papers because wood fibers are shorter and weaken during the manufacruring process. Several condi- tions can increase the acidity of paper: residual acids from processing, rosin or alum sizing, Gilles used to create bulk, oils used to make paper transparent, optical brighteners, atmospheric sulfur dioxide and the presence of lign- ins. Manufacturers use various chemicals to "buffer" the acids that build up in the paper such as calclum or magne~ sium oarbonato, both of which can absorb large amounts of acid. Reducing the amount of acid in paper is especially important for archival storage.(1] § 13. Surface properties “The usability of paper is directly affected by its various surface properties, An extremely important property is the ability of paper to bear ink on its surface without "feathering" or "bleeding"; that is, without having the ink he~ “soaked in,” "spread around,” or blurred, Several factors aflect the ability of paper to cary fluid ink on its surface without “feathering” or “bleeding.” “Among these is a process called “loading,” in which various chemical additives are used to "size" or fill in the spaces between the cellulose fibers. For high quality rag paper, this is sometimes accomplished by running the shoots through a tub containing a gelatin that dries on the paper and is impressed into it during the process of "calen- “dering” (Le., pressing paper between rollrs of plates to give ita desired finish). Other filles, such as Kaolin ("china clay”~a very pure, white clay), calcium sulpbate, or sometimes barium sulphate, add tothe appearance of the final ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 13 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) product, but do not greatly affect its writing surface. Sore cheaper grades of paper are sized or filled by the addition of liquid-suspended rosin and alum. After this, ‘the paper is un through hot rollers and then glazed, L©., given a smooth, glossy, or lustrous surface. Other sub- stances used in the loading or filling process include casein, latex, rubber, starch, wax, and synthetic resins. It should ‘be noted that these processes are an artificial means of restoring the cellulose fibers to a condition of density that is similar to that in which the fibers are naturally found. To create the final surface qualities of paper, the sized material is run through a series of rollers, sometimes made of polished metal and heated, inthe process called "calendering.* In many cases, this imparts the final finish to the end product, which varies from very rough and matted paper (asin the case of some kinds of art paper) to very slick paper (ain the case of book paper that must be able to register fine printed detail). Of cours, the raw materi- tle involved also determine 1 a great extent the finish that is to be applied to a particular pape, the aditives to be ‘sed, and almost every her aspect ofthe manufscturing procere. § 14. Sizing ‘When paper dries it tends to soak up ink quite easly and cause the ink to “bleed.” Sizing is a process of treating paper to make it less ebsorbent and inerease its strength. Sizing also affects abrasiveness, ctesibility, Finish, print bility, smoothness and surface bond stengt.(1] ‘There are tree types of sizing: unsized (water-leaf), weskcsized (slack sized), and strong sized (hard sized). ‘Unsized paper has low water resistance and includes absorbent papers for blotting; weak-sized paper is somewhat absorbent and includes newsprint, and strong-sized papers have the highest water resistance.[2} §15. Watermarks ‘A watermark is a design or pattem put into paper during ts production, by making thinner or thicker layers of ‘lp when the pulp is still wet. A line or wire mark is put in thinner paper while a shadow mark is putin thicker par ‘ez, Paper watermarks can be seen by holding the paper against the light or, in some cases, over a black surface Usually, the mark shows the manufacturer's name and, perhaps, a geometric design ar other image. The purpose of ‘watermarks in paper is to identity the origin of the paper, a a signature of the manufacturer, of as a socurity measure to avoid forgery of important documents including bank notes, passports, entry-tckets, tc.[1} A watermark may be ‘used to date, identify sizes, mill trademarks and locations and the quality of paper (2] ‘Several steps are involved in producing watermarks, Firs, the pulp, suspended in liquid, is floated onto a gauze mold or sheet on a conveyor belt; by this means, a high percentage of the liquid is rapidly drained off. Next, the pulp is placed under a "dandy roller” which packs it and further reduces its liquid content. If the paper isto be of the “wove” variety (Le, impressed with an interlaced wire network to create a woven sppearance), the dandy roller is covered with material similar to the gauze on the conveyor belt; otherwise, one side of the finished paper would have the appearance of being woven and the other side would appear smooth, If the paper is to be “laid” (ie., have closely spaced parallel lines), the dandy roller will impress thin, flexible parallel wires into the pulp, displacing the fibers in such a way as to mark the paper without reducing its thickness, And ifthe paper is to be watermarked with a symbol, letters, or numbers, the wires affixed to the dandy roller will have the shape of the watermark. This proc- ss i quite similar to that used in making "laid” paper. With the passage of time, thece wire forms wear out and sometimes cause identifiable variations ot markings in ‘the paper. When these vatlations arc discovered, a paper tester will examine @ sboct bearing the variations, note the points of change, date the sheet, and store it in the company’s files. After replacement of the watermark or "laid" lines, another sheet of paper beating the new mack willbe examined, marked, dated, and filed, Thus, any variation from the regular pattern cannot only be identified, but also in many cases, dated with varying degrees of exactness. Another type of identifying mark is the shaded watermark, which creates a grayscale image. Instead of using wire covering for the dandy rol, the shaded watermark is made by using the rofl’ own uneven surface. Also, digital © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig, US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 14 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 19S (Originally published in 2006) swatcrmarks are encoded into music, video, photos and other electronic files for identification purposes.[3] In addition to the watermark files kept by the various paper manufacturers, there are also registers of water- marks that are kept by other organizations within the paper industry. These registies are brought up to date at fe ‘quent intervals. In addition to the paper industy, recording industry associations have begua providing protection ‘or digital watermarics [4] $16. Chainlines Handmade paper retains an impression of the sieve-like mold in which it was made, One set of the mold's wires rum parallel to the shorter edges of the sheet of paper. These wires, called chainlines, feave an impression on the pa~ ‘pet. The spaces between the chainlines can be measured and therefore gives each mold a unique identifying charac- teristic, This messurement is useful if no watermark is visible. Chainlines are often used to identify the paper in books [1] C. Specialty Paper § 17. In general Much ofthe paper used today is called "specilty paper”—that is, paper that is designed for various special pur- poses, For example, the metal foil in a package of cigarottes, the sensitized plastic paper tapes used in computers, oiyetnylene-coated waterproof paper, waxed paper, and advertising blowers are all types of specialty peper. Spe- Cialty paper receives further treatmeat after leaving the original papermaking machine and also in many cass, after being shipped from the paper factory to the specialty manufacturer. Many specialty papers are laminated (pressed together) with metals of plastics to give them special functional qualities. Some of these papers are chemically ‘coated, while others are laminated to diferent grades of paper. ‘Specialty paper is sometimes made to a customer's individual specifications, in which case the tack of identify- ing it is relatively simple. Some of the most important types of specialty paper, such as carbon paper and "safety" ‘paper, are discussed inthe following sections of this artcle.LL} § 18, Carbon paper (Carbon paper is stil in use today and, formerly, was an important type of business and professions! specialty paper. It is made from high-grade tissue, to which is added a waxy, pigmented coating. Although the details offs ‘manufacture and chernical composition are highly guarded trade secrets, any sample carbon impression can be idea- tified by chemical analysis, Also of aid to the investigator isthe fact that several different kinds of carbon paper are ‘mamufactured for various uses. All of these have diverse physical and chemical properties that render possible their {dentifieation. Four general types of carbon paper are made: “one-time” or single-use carbon, typewriter carbon, pen. and pencil carbon, and epecialty carbon, Some of the varieties inthe "specialty" category include nonfreeze carbon, register-oll carboa, spot carbon, and heetograph carbon, § 19. Carbon paper—Single-use carbon Single-use or “onetime” carbon paper is the most extensively used type of carbon paper. Numerous business foums, teletype rolls, and even stationery have several sheets that are arranged in "manifold" forms or "decks"; in this arrangement, the top of original sheet often has a different use or destination from that of the remaining carbon, sheets. In common practice, these sheets are of different colors, the use or destination of each being indicated by a special eolor code. ‘The problem in manufacturing cazbon paper for such “one-time” usage is to make sheets that will be inexpen- sive but sill give e clear charp impression on each sheet ofthe manifold form. A gelatin carbon “dope” must be ap plied ina thin layer to the tissue base. This dope must have a high facturing quality that will pent ito bresk loose © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov, Works.‘88 AMIUR POF 3d 195 Page 15 88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) from the tissue sheet as easily 2s possible, so as to make the darkest possible impression with a minimum of "waste" Ge, dope retained by the tissue). - ‘These practical considerations dictate the chemical constituents of "one-time" carbon paper and are factors that ‘aid is identification. For example, ifa second or third sheet from a manifold form has been altered by erasure and: etyped with a dissimilar type of carbon paper (generally, a form of typewriter carbon), this fact can often be ascer- tained by an examination of the typewritten impression. Also, when an honest error made in typing a manifold document has been erased by the original typist and retyped, evidence of this erasure will exist and the retyped por~ tion will ordinarily be considerably fainter than the surrounding typewritten matter, owing to the very nature of “one-time” carbon paper. {§20, Carbon paper—Typewriter earbon “The basie problem in manufacturing typewriter carbon is to make each sheet capable of producing many copies ‘without smearing or becoming faint and illegible. Up to 50 copies can be made from one sheet ofthe better grades bof typewriter carbon, The base tssue of this paper must be strong enough to resist the repeated blows of the type bars; at the same time, it must also be thick enough to permit clear registration of the typing on each underlying sheet of paper, oven though there may be as many as 10 sheets inthe typewriter. The carbon dope must also be rela- tively thick and have fracturing qualities that permit only a thin layer of dope to break: free on each striking of a key, thus leaving sufficient dope adhering tothe tissue to permit repeated use of the carbon, “The manufacture of typewalter carbon paper is a much slower and more precise operation than the manufacture of “one-time” carbon, since a greater degree of quality and uniformity of impression is expected. Any menufacturing, ‘method, whether mechanical or chemical, that will appreciably increase the efficiency of typewriter carbon paper ‘without an increase in cost, or any method that will reduce the manufactating cost without impairing quality, is usu- ally a highly guarded industria secret. Ts therefore unlikely that carbon paper produced by any two companies will be identical in chemical composition. This. of cours, isa circumstance that aids greatly inthe idemitfeation of par~ ticular carbons. Another aid to the investigator is the individual appearance of carbon copies it is nearly impossible, ‘for example 10 reproduce the exact shade of color oF amount of blur of the original carbon in & way that would pass the scrutiny ofa serious investigator. {§21. Carbon paper—Pen and peneil carbon encil carbon paper reproduces the impressions of blunter and softer instrament than typewriter carbon repro- duces, This accomplished by making the carbon tissuc shect and dope thicker, and by using lower quality raw ‘materials, In many sales books the carbon dope is applied directly to the back of all but the last shect, so thet sepa- Tate carbon sheets are not required. The dope employed in this process is often of a cheaper grade than that used in ‘ordinary "one-time" carbon paper, and its function isto transfer only a thin film of carbon tothe sheet undemeath it in response to the pressure ofthe writing instrument, Pencil carbons are used in eocipt books and other business forms. Detecting alterations inthe so-called carbon copy is nota diftult asthe problem of making the alteration, since receipt papers are often of the cheapest quality snd ths are easily torn or stsned inthe process of erasure. Fountain pen carbon paper differs essentially from pencil carbon paper In that the dope employed in the manu- facture of the former fractures and transfers to the underlying paper at a considerably softer pressure, Carbons for ‘ballpoint pens, however, are mado in the same way as pencil carbons. § 22. Carbonless paper Carbonless copy paper or NCR (to carbon required) paper isan alternative to carbon paper and electronic copy machines. It consists of maltiple sheets of paper, each of which are coated with dye or ink that is micro-encapsulzted into the paper or reactive clay or both. The back of the first sheet i coated with dye; the top ofthe subsequent sheets are coated with a clay that reacts with the dye to create a permanent mark. When someone writes with @ pen, types © 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34195 Page 16 '8§ Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) cor uses a printr on the paper, the pressure ofthe writing instrument canses the micro-capaules fo open and spill their dye. The capsules are small enough to leave an accuratc impression on the copied pages [1] §23. Safety paper ™Safoty paper" is paper that has been specially treated in order to make any attempts at alteration visible and ob- vious. This paper is used to make identity cards and also bank checks, money orders, and other valuable negotiable struments. Safety paper, therefore, actually serves both as @ deterrent co crlme and also as a means of recognizing and identifying alterations of instruments. Safety paper can have both overt and covert security features, An overt feature {s one that can be verified im= rediately by the naked eye without special equipment. A covert feature is not so obvious, and an examiner would need a chemical or an instrument lke infrared light or a microscope io find it. Some examples of security features are holograms, security threads (@ thin, usually metal, ciread woven into the paper), cherical sensitizing and em- ‘bedded security fibers 1) ‘There are numerous varieties of safety paper. One variety will show the word “void” in a prominent pattem if the surface ofthe paper ic effaced by an ink eradicator. In other varieties, the paper’s surface pattern will disappear or the base stock will change its color. Chemical treatment of pulp for the paper while it is being beaten, and also coating or embossing the finished stock, are ways of making safety papets. In most cases, however, the details of ‘mamnfacture are Kept secret. - Various kinds of safety paper have been developed for goverunental use, including papers that are sensitive to liquid, which will render visible any invisible writing thereon; papers that will burn rapidly and leave litle ash; and ‘papers that will be destroyed on immersion in water. An interesting corollary to this last type of paper is its use by Enterprising bookmakers for betting slips. Trays or tubs of water ar kept available in the bookmaking establishment fnd inthe event of a sudden visit by the potie, al inriminatng slips can be dumped into the water and thus de~ stroyed is “anti-counterfeit” paper. This type of paper, when used for currency, is impres- nated with tiny red and blue silk fibers, The absence of these fibers indicates that a bill is counterfeit Other anti- counterfeit paper, such as that used in printing military payment certificates, contains luorescent fibers that can be seen when ihe paper is examined under ultraviolet light, D. Methods of Identifying Paper §24. In general [Cumulative Supple Paper is mede from many different types of fibrous materials, and there are innumerable processes available for its manufacture and treatment. As a resull, every American home and place of business contains papers or paper products that can be identified as to their origin and date of manufacture by their chemical composition, special in- dentations, marks, and punctures, and other internal and extemal features. For example, expensive bond typing pa~ per, stationery, and handmade papor ean be identified by means of waterraarke and chainlines. A stamp that is torn ‘along its perforated edge can be matched microscopically tothe sheet from which it was tom a paper match ean be ‘identified in the same manner, even in the absence of any perforations; and a sheet of paper from a gummed-edge pad can be traced io the pad from which it came. Papers that appear tobe alike can be distinguished by physical and ‘Chemical testing. And cresures on paper can be recognized and identified by the destructive action ofthe particular eradicating agent. Forensic docurent examiners ae trained to identify water-soaked, charred or bumed pape, print- ing and duplication paper, indented writing and mechanical impressions made on paper. Indeed, if it were not for the ‘enormous amounts of paper that are manufactured and consumed daily, there would be few problems involved in identifying particular fegments or sheets of paper. ‘There are other issues that are intertwined with the identification of paper but that are beyond the scope of this © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Onig. US Gov. Works. \‘88 AMIUR FOF 3 195, Page 17 ‘88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Oniginally published in 2006) article such as handwriting analysis, identification of inks or dyes used on paper, and location of a specific type- ‘rite, printer, photocopiers and other machines or instruments that use paper. [1] (CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases: Fingerprints: Evidence was suficient to show that defendant transferred falsified court order by placing i in prison mail system, so as to support conviction for forgery; defondant, who was clerk in prisons library, had access to typewriters and copy machine, which would lave equipped him to prepare court order, defendant's thumbprints were found on pages of court order, defendant had unsupervised access to prison’s message center, from which en- velope containing court otder was dispatched to prison records department, and defendant had reason to perpetrate forgery, as court order would have cleared way for his immediate release from prison after serving 13 years of 23- year sentence. VAM. § 570.090, subd. 1(4). State v. Stallings, 158 S.W.3d 310 (Mo, Ct. App. W.D. 2005} Wests Key Number Digest, Foruery ©=?44¢ 5) Ton of Section! ____ JEND OF SUPPLEMENT} $25. Chemical tests 'As a general rule, the cellulose fibers in paper can be identified by microscopic examination and chemical test= ing. The usual chemical test employed for fber identification is staining process in which different fibers aro stained to different colors and different intensities of the same color. For example, when subjected to a staining ‘agent called "Herzberg stain," which isa solution of iodine and zinc chlaride, cotton and linen fibers will stain to @ ‘wine red, jute o a deep yellow-brown, espasto to a bluc or blue-violet, and straw to a blue color. Although identifi cation is somewhat more complicated in the case of wood pulp, paper chemists nevertheless have at their disposal a ‘battery of tests that can identify any type of wood pulp paper. {In addition, chemical tess are offen used to determine whether a substance, such as a drug or blood, has been ox ‘the paper. For example, the court in Laime v, State notes that when state troopers searched a safe they found several sheets of paper which were perforated and the sheets of paper contained a large number of doses of LSD, as indi- ‘ated by a field chemical test the toopers performed on the paper] § 26. Identification through alterations Documents that have been altered or tampered with can be identified in various ways. When a document is al- tered, of when there has been 2 substitution of pages in it, some trace ofthe tampering can usually be found. Dam- age from physical or chemical erasure, damage to staple holes, indentations made by paper clips, the addition of foreign adhesives, attempted retouching, unique bends or fold, tears and cuts, unique marks let by photocopiers or printers and damaged paper ste all important clues in this regard. Superficial marks on documents are also signifi ‘cant, For instance, If'an envelope is addressed with 2 ballpoint pen, indentations on the conteots can be compared ‘withthe writing on the outside ofthe envelope. “To the layperson, one sheet of paper seems very much like another, especially ifthe sheets are nearly identical in color, weight, and surface qualities. Actually, however, this isnot the case a all, and an attempt to substitute one for mors pages in manifold documents ean often be established by showing subtle differences between the various kinds of paper used, A skilled paper examinor can datoct minute differences in quality between different types of ‘paper, and may be able to examine a document and state with certainty that one or more ofits pages differs from the others, §27. Identification through alterations—Particular alteration method used © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 3d 195 Page 18 88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally pubtished in 2006) One of the most common methods of altering a document is to erase significant marks on the surface ofthe par por and then insert new marks or leave the space blank, as the case may be. Since different kinds of writing instr nents aad inks produce different types of marke, different methods of erasing are necessarily employed. Ball-point ‘pen inks presenta special problem because diey arc both difficult to cradicate and difficult to restore. {a the specialized area of criminal counterfitng, one of the most difficult problems that faces the counterfiter is obtaining paper that has the proper “feel,” “rate,” and “snap.” The problem is sometimes solved by bleaching real currency of lower denomination and using it to counterfeit bilis of higher denomination. 1} In other cases, portions of genuine money orders or other documents printed on safety paper are frst bleached ‘and then carefully redravm for higher amounts. both the writing on the documents and the safety background pattern ‘being painstakingly simulated. Bleaching is generally the mark of a professional criminal; less professional means of eradication include rubber and gum crasers and chemical ink eradicators. In the case of a erude erasure, as by me- chanical eradication, the surface reflectivity of the paper is changed, When examined under oblique lighting, this change will often be readily apparent. ‘No matter what method is used, and no matter how naturally the document is made to appear, if it has been eradicated, an examination will reveal evidence ofthe eradication tothe trained eye. Once under scrutiny by a.com petent document examiner, the erasure will invariably be detected. This does not mean, however, that an examiner can decipher or restore the eradicated matter in all cass. ‘Marks made by an ordinary load pencil will not bleed into paper. If these marks ae thoroughly erased, nothing will remain except the pressure ines caused by the pencil and the roughened surface of the paper where the erasure ‘was mate, Usually, however, the person who performs the erasure does not do a complete job and minute traces of {graphite will remain. These graphite traces can ordinarily be defected by microscopic examination. ‘The application of an “ink eraser” to a document will invariably leave traces of alteration, since these erasers are heavily loaded with abrasives that alter, sometimes drastically, the surface of the paper. These erasures can be de~ tected by careful examination of the paper or document. $28. Identifieation through alterations—Mechanical eradication Tndetible and "magnetic ink" pencils contain chemicals that may be left in microscopic amounts on an otherwise thoroughly erased document. Methods for detecting these microscopic traces are often chemical in nature and in- vvolve tampering with the document. Some of these trace chemicals, however, can be detected by an ultraviolet or infrared examination. The methods least likely to damage or alter a document should always be employed first; ‘other methods should be used only as a last resort and then only by qualified experts. A document that has been, tampered with by an untrained or unqualified person will rpicly lose its evidentiary value. §29. Ident Generally, chemical ink eradicators burn the ink away, tuming it into colorless, oxidized by-products that are ci- ther wiped or blotted of, ot else diffused into the paper. Since the chemicals in these eradicators bleed into paper, their presence can be detected by examination under oblique lighting or ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, the in- gredients in these eradicators usually contain volatile clements that will stain photographic plates exposed to them. Lines eradicated by chemical ink eradicators will often reappear, after a certain amount of time has elapsed, in the form of faint yellow lines. ‘$30, Folds and impressions in altered document ‘Folds in a document will often provide significant elues as to the docurnent’s identity. It jo virtually impossible ‘to eliminate all traces of prior folds, and folds in a suspected paper may always be compared with other papers in the © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34.195 Page 19 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) seme document, Ifa folded document has been altored at « place where the crease of the folds has broken the surface of the paper, it is often possible to detect a spread in the ink line at this place, or in the ease of a poneil or ball-point pen, tiny microscopic "skips" in the writing lines. Furthermore, if « document has been altered while folded, writing impressions will een appear on the folded area beneath the alteration. Since writing impressions on paper beneath that which is written on are often invisible in normal ight, the sur- face of any questioned paper should always be examined under an oblique light, The light in this examination is not Kept stationary, but is moved around to bring out any shadowy patteras of writing intpressions that have inadver- tently been left on the paper, Anonymous letters, notes, and other questioned documents often contain these impres- sions, and in many eases these impressions have identified the author ofthe instrument, ‘Anonymous letters may bear impressions of other writings, such as part ofa prior Ieiter or note containing the ‘author's name and address. However, the amhors of anonymous letzers will frequently cause writing impressions of a false name or address fo appear on the instrument. Indeed, investigations involving anonymous letters are quite likely to be complicated with delivery of false clues ‘When documents are typed, a second or "backing" sheet may be placed between the typewriter roller and the sheet that is written on. In many cases, this second sheet will bear impressions of all or part of tho matter typed on the first sheet. This means of ideatification also applies to carbon. peper where carbon copies are made of typed. documents, And quite often, a dacument can be identified simply by comparing the punctuation marks on it with those on second or "backing" sheet. §.31. Blots, emears, and smudges Blots, smears, and smudges on a document are nearly always regarded with suspicion by a document examiner, ‘even though their presence may not be indicative of any alteration, When a document is forged by means of tracing, inicroscopic smears, smudges, or ines from tho tracing shect will often appesr on the forged document. Ink blots and smears are frequently employed by amateur forgers to cover up traces of alteration or cresute. Usually these ‘marks are blotted quickly and leave a very light patch of ink. In other cases, however, the surface area is rubbed and ‘tho spilled ink allowed to dry naturally, so that nothing undermesth can be deciphered visually. Nevertheless, infra- ‘ed, transmnitied light, and other physical tests can offen bring out the matter intended to be obliterated. In the case of anonymous Isters, the sealing flap of the envelope should always be investigated for traces of DNA. § 32, Holes, rips, and tears Holes, rips, and tears in questioned documents should be scrutinized carefully. For example, staple holes in ‘multi-page documents should appear consistent throughout the entire document or the inconsistency accounted for. Sometimes staples are removed by means of a staple remover that leaves two sets of parallel grooves in the paper; in these cases, even though the new staple is carefully inserted into the same holes, evideuce ofthe tampering will 1+ main. In other eates, the person who altered the document may simply re-staple it without paying any attention to the old staple holes. This will cause the substituted pagea to have fewer staple holes than the original pages. Quite often, holes are punched in a document to permit its insertion into a loose-leaf folder. In such eases, any discrepancy in the size of the punched holes should be noted as possible evidence of tampering, Examination of the edges of a rip or tear should be made, both by looking at the edges and using magnification, ‘Comparing each side of ripped or tom peper may roveal ifthe two pieces of paper are the same type and may reveal ‘ingerprints or other useful evidence. 933, Perforations and ents ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 3d 195, Page 20 188 Am, Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Perforated edges of paper can be matched under magnification if the edges have not been rubbed or otherwise ‘deformed. Paper put up in pads, reams, or decks often has marks on its out edges left by imperfections in the cutting, ‘blade, By these means, itis possible to tell not only if a sheet has been taken from a particular stock of paper, but also the part ofthe stock from which ithas been taken, For example, if a multi-page contractor other instrument was allegedly typed at one time, all sheets in the instrament will normally come from the same part ofthe ream of paper ‘used and wil have the same cutting marks or imperfections. Thus, if several sheets inthe instrument appear to have ‘been typed on paper with different cutting characteristics this may be evidence of alteration by means of substi ton. ‘A document is sometimes altered by cutting off one or more of its edges. For example, ifthe date of a hoto- ‘graphic wil is near the top of a page, a person wishing to alter the date might trim off the portion of the sheet beas~ ing it and substitute a new date in forged handwriting or typewriting. Document examiners are wary of instruments ‘mitten on odd-sze sheets of paper, especially ifan explanation forthe odd size cannot be discovered. ‘After investigation has revealed the source of the type of paper on which a questioned document was written, the documents pages can then be checked for size against the manufacturer's stocks of paper. A microscopic exami. nation can be used to determine whether the edges of one questioned sheet have been trimmed more recently than. the edges of another questioned sheet, or whether the trimming was performed with different tools. Comparing the ‘simuned sheets of an altered document with the size of untrimmed sheet is an effective courtroom tactic. $34. Detecting age or date of document ‘One of the most difficult tasks for an examiner of questioned documents is to ascertain the age or date of a par~ ticular instrument. While many documents are relatively easy to date, a great number are not. The paper on which the document was written and the conditions under which it was preserved are vital factors in this kind of examina tion. Indeed, determining the age of a document is similar to ascertaining the time of death in a homicide case; the -variables involved often outweigh the methods and ability ofthe examiner. ‘In attempting to ascertain the true age or date ofa questioned document, an examiner will uilize various tests and procedures, The examiner will smdy the paper on which the document was writte to determine whether it ex- jsted atthe time the document was allegedly prepared and whether it use is consistent with the nature of the docu- rent. With the same objectives in mind, the examiner will also study the ink or other writing medium used on the document and the penmanship or typing of the author. Additionally, the examlner must attexpt co discover all evi {dence of forgery or alteration. Ifno clues are produced by these procedures, the examiner must then investigate the ‘physical factor tht affect the aging of paper. [Although a precise determination of age by means of physical factors involved in the aging process is extremely Aiffcat, its known that different grades and kinds of paper will age at different rates, even though stored under similar Conditions, Some papers will become yellow and brite; others will exhibit tiny red spots (called “foxing”) as a result of the chemical reaction of irom particles in the paper to air of motsture; and still other papers will become, ‘mottled, Often, too, the examiner will have to rely on information about the conditions under which the document has been preacred in order to come to any conclusions conesming ita age. fan ancient manuscript, particularly one porported to have been written prior to 1500 (in the book trade, such manuscripts are called "incunabula"), is questioned, a thorough enalysis of the paper used in the manuscript should be made, Paper manufacturing processes have changed greatly over the years, as have the raw materials used, and a ‘manuscript that gives every appearance of having great age may well prove t be a clever forgery. A famous case of this kind ocourred almost two centuries ago, when a young man presented to the world a five-act tragedy, actually: “written by himself, asa "lost" play by Shakespeare, After throwing the literary world into ferment, he was finally exposed by a scholar who reasoned that sinee Elizabettian paper was no longer available in quires or other large supplies a forger of an Elizabethan play would have to purchase old books end cut out their blank pages in order to acquire properly aged paper. An examination of the “Shakespearean” play in question proved that this, in fact, had been the forger’s modus operandi. © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 21 88 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) §35. Artificially aged instruments ‘Anything done to a document in the course of attempting to "age" it for fraudulent use will ordinarily leave cer- twin detectable clues. Paper has certain physical properties that ae either misunderstood or overlooked by the aver- age lay person. For example, itis well known that paper changes its color as it ages; hence, forgers of old or ant quarian documents commonly age them artificially by rubbing them in dirt or soaking them in fee. What they do not Lnderstand, however, and therefore ful to consider, isthe fact that the aging of paper is not a uniform process, and ‘that variations in aging signs depend on where and how the dovumeat was stored. Ifa document has Iain in a folded state at the bottom of 2 trunk, for exemple, the outside area of the instrument, Particularly the area around the ex- ‘posed fold, will show signs of aging much more than the inside area. Again, some types of paper will show signs of aging only a its folds {§36, Detecting removal from sealed envelope ‘An envelope that has been opened and resealed can ordinarily be identified by signs that the adhesive substance oo the flap has been damaged, altered, or roplaced. However, some law enforcement agencies have used a method for obtaining the contents of a sealed envelope without opening the flap. Under this method, two thin knitting nee- dies are inserted between the flap and the body of the envelope at one of the comers where, normally, there is no adhesive, One of the needles remains outside the fold of the document in the envelope and the other is placed inside the fold. The needles are then rotated so as to roll the documont tightly around them; when the process is completed, the document is withdravm from the envelope. After examination, the document can then be reinserted in the enver ope by reversing the above procedure. Documents removed from envelopes in this manner have a tendency to re- roll loosely after their removal. Therefore, any document that exhibits @ tendency to roll up after being removed. from its envelope may properly be suspected of having been subjected to improper scrutiny. E. Proserving Paper as Evidenco §37. In general “The value of paper as evidence is often not recognized by those who handle it initaly. As a result, this evidence is ofen improperiy handled, and cues to its identity may be lost. Tis is particularly true, for example, in cases in- ‘olving indentations made on note pads and similar types of paper by the pressure of the pen or pencil used on the sheet above. In these cases, police officer, in an attempt to soive the case quickly, often rub a pencil across the sur= face ofthe paper in order to make the indentations legible. If the indentations have been made with extreme pressure and a hard-pointed writing instrument, this technique will sometimes fumetion effectively. Generally, however, it does nothing but ggstroy what might have been cruclal evidence. Again, police and other investigators who have ‘been taught to slip paper into glassine or plastic envelopes for protection may not realize thatthe edges, particularly the tom edges, of a document or scrap of paper can be extremely important, or they may bend, fold, or press fat areas ofa document that should not be so treated. “The seriousness of the problem indicates its solution. Whenever the identity of a document or other paper comes {nto question in 2 civil or criminal case, a qualified scientific investigator should be consulted 26 soon as possible, Ideally, the investigator shoule allow nothing that might bear on the identity of the paper to be handled improperly Envelopes should nat he opened by unauthorized persons, Folded documents should not be unfolded or exposed to sunlight, Charred documents ahould not be touched and should be protected from any drafts or breezes. Supplies of stationery oF stamps should not be roughly handled, nor should tom edges of documents or fragments of paper. § 38. Handling by experts ‘When expert testimony conceming paper is to be given, whether by document examiners, paper chemists, criminalists, ot otters, the paper must be presented in court in as close to its original condition, oF the condition in which it was discovered, a5 possible, If changes in the condition of a document or paper have taken place since its discovery, these changes should be accounted for. The paper should be kept ina sealed and initialed envelope pend- ‘ng tral, and the person who ist testify ast its identity should be able to aceount for is custody at all times 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POP 34 195 Page 22 £88 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) IIL. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES §39. In general ‘The methods used to identify paper are based in science, Forensic science relates to the application of scientific ‘knowledge to legal problems.{L] “The identification of paper and changes made to it offen requires scientific examination [2] The proponent of forensic evidence regarding paper has the burden of demonstrating its relevance and admissibility [3] Parol evidence may be used to show alterations made to paper used in iegal instruments.[4] Generally there ae three requirements for forensic evidence to be admissible in any trial or hearing where the rules of evidence apply. These requirements are: (1) authentication; 2) the best evidence rule; and (3) expert opinion [5] Se — § 40. Admissibility; parol evidence If aeration to a legal instrument written on paper are unauthorized by a party to that instrument, parol evi- dence is genorally admissible to prove tbe alteration. [1] The evidence is used to prove the terms ofthe instrament as {twas orginally executed, not co vary its terms, All relevant ciccumstances fending to show tho actual agreement are admissible {2] 1n Ryan v, Fleet Bank of New York, a bank customer reported his unauthorized signature or alteration, The cus ‘tomer’ report complied with the Uniform Commercial Code provision requiring bum to give written notice of a for- {Bery or alteration within one year of time when an account statement was made available in order to maintain a law- Suit to recover the amounts paid by the bank on the forgod instrument, He notified the bank by letter that his sign- ture had been forged in connection with transactions on certain dates involving a certain account, provided the bank swith copies ofthe front and back of the checks drawn on his accounts, and notified the bank by letter that "[elvery ‘one of thote checks bears forged endorsements and forged makers signatures."[3] In Sum Oil Co. v. Allen, a lawsuit fo cancel a lease, the plaintiff attempted to prove that the lease had been al- tered by showing that he had deleted the pre-printed word "ten" and intertined the word "five" above with green ink. Before the Tease was recorded, the written word "five" was completely eradicated by somcone to make the Tease ‘again effective for 10 years as originaly printed and prepared, but not as agreed to by the partics, The court ruled ‘that the signer of an instrument that has been altered after its execution, where te alteration bas been concealed so far as its appearance is concerned, must show all of the relevant circumstances bearing on the actual agreement as originally executed in support ofthe allegation that the instrument has been altered [A] § 41. Weights sufficiency of evidence “The proponent of evidence purporting to prove the authenticity or alteration ofa legal instrument has the burden of proving both te fact of the papor' composition or alteration and ways in which the instrument is affected by the ‘composition or aeration by a preponderance ofthe evidence] For example, in Nordale v. Fisher, the defendants signature did not appear on one version ofa real estate listing agreement, but did appear on a different version, The court held that it would make no presumptions as to the time of the alteration and by whom it was made and the en= tive question i fr the tier of fatto consider in the light ofall the evidence. [2] If an alteration is made to an instrument after its exeention and delivery, the circumstances, in the absence of explanatory evidence, may tend to show that itis a mers memorandum rather than an alteration [3] In Wicker v ‘Jones, the plaintf? introduced evidence tending to prove erasures and intcilincalions, made to material parts of two ‘deeds, were not in the same handwriting as the body of the deed, that different ink was used, and that they were not ‘made at the date of the deed, but afterwards. The court held that the test of the materiality of an alteration in an in- strument is whether the altered matter give the instrument a different effect from that which it originally had, carry- ing with it some change in the rights, interest, or obligations of the parties, and, in addition, an alteration in a writing ‘implies a change made after its execution, and an erasure or interlieation is not an alteration if itis made before the ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 3d 195, Page 23 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally publisned in 2006) final execution of the writing [4] § 42, Authentication ‘The Uniform Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Evidence require tet all evidence be authenticated; in ‘other words, the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be.[1] The rule gives several illustrations of ‘ways evidence may be identified and authenticated {2} Several of these illustrations are helpful to show how paper ‘may be identified and authenticated in an evidentiary hearing, The trier-of-tact of an expert may amhenticate the ‘ype, source, age, and condition of paper by comparison with known authentic documents or by scientific analysis or by observing the paper's distinctive characteristics and appearance [3] ‘The rule requiring authentication is also the source of the chain of custody rule, which requires proof that the item offered into evidence is in substantially the same condition as when it came into the possession of the item's ‘proponent [4] The party that offers an item of evidence must make a prima feele showing of the item's authenticity, Clear, cogent and convincing proof or proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. Once a prima facie case is ‘made, the rir-of-fast will ulinatoly determine the authenticity of the evidence. The jury is required to find there is substantial evidence trom which they could infer thatthe document is authentic.[5] in U.S. v. Jardine, the defendant ‘was charged with passing counterfeit currency. The court held there was sufficient evidence that a bill the defendant used to purchase goods ata gas station was ofthe same type as those found in the defendant's car. The bill was iden- tical in apperanes to the conte bills and had a giusuecolaaon, Siniery the defendant had deposed a counterfeit $100 bill ata bank that had an identical serfal number as 20-of the counterfeit bills found in the defen- dant's care. Even though the chain of custody for each of these bills was incomplete, the court held that the evidence ‘vas admissible and raised the question of the weight to be accorded to it by the jury. The evidence was properly authenticated [6] In an appeal of an administrative proceeding to denaturalize a citizen, the court held that the U.S. government proved the defendant was a former guard at a Nazi concentration camp, that he obtained a U.S. visa ond citizenship illegally, and that he was subject to denaturalization 7] In Kairys, the government relied on & German SS personal bogan (personne! record) that matched similar other documents that had been authenticated in form in other pro- ceedings. The defendant based his objection that the document was not authentic on the grounds that it was not @ ‘public record because it was foreign and SS documents were not public records and tbat there was an insufficient ‘foundation laid by a custodian. He introduced evidence that the photograph may possibly have been tom off or re- placed, that there were pencil marks and erasures, that it could not be conclusively established that it was his signa- je, thatthe chemical composition ofthe paper was such that its production in the immediate post-war period could ‘not be eliminated, that the thumbprint ink was not normal and that the thumbprizt could possibly have been placed ‘there by mechanical means. The court ruled, balancing the expert testimony, that the document Was a public record found in the Soviet Union archives depository for German SS documents and its fiber content of the paper used was consistent with that of documents more than 20 yeats old A trier-of-fact must weigh all of the evidence before ruling that a document is authentic and thus admissible. Tn US. v. Wolfson, the government charged the defendants with securities violations. The defendants argued that a ‘memorandum relied on by the goveriment was false because the paper on which it was typed bore a Watermark that ddid not exit in the year it was purportedly created. The parties did not contest that the Watermarks on the pages of the questioned document had been impressed on the paper by a dandy roli manufactured by the J. J. Plank: Corpora tion; that Plank had used one metal die to produce an electrotype of the watermarks beginning about 1940 and a dif ferent die beginning about 1952; thatthe 1952 electrotype desien differed from the 1940 electrotype design in vari- ous details; that up until 1955 Plank had also manufactured dandy rolls bearing handmade bent-wire designs: and that in he period in which both electotype and handmade designs were used, Le. between 1940 and 1955, Plank made more dandy rolls with handmade marks than with electrotype marks. The defendants’ wimesses testified that the watermarks on the memorandum paper were made by the 1952 electrotype design. The government's witnesses testified that the watermark design could well bave been made by on the bentwire designs used by Plank for many ‘years before 1952. A secretary testified thet she typed the questioned document and was able to affirm the genuine- ness of the 1950 date typed on the memorandum, The court found thatthe evidence amply supported the govern- ‘ment's postion and held tha the memorandum was valid and authenticated the document [3] » © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 24 18 Aum. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) In a dispute over ownership of resl property, 2 plaintiff attempted to prove an original grant of land in Louisians ‘tom France to the United States. The plaintiff offered several sheets of paper from a record book that appoared to be ‘very old. The edges and comers of the paper were burned and bore Watermarks and liquid staios. French writing, ‘purported to be the formal grant of ld, Historical experts showed that Spanish archives inthe province of Louis ‘ana contained "registers of grants—records of grants or concessions of lands in the province by both Spanish and French authorities. These records were transferred to the United States, became law and were recorded with the lands office in New Orleans. A fire destroyed most of the records im the office in 1865; the remaining papers were damaged by fire and water. Purther evidence was offered of a certified copy of each of the land grants made by the Jand office in 1854 and 1855 and a cartfied copy ofthe original grent of 1757 made by the scerotary of the Spanish colonial governor in 1795. These copies corresponded with each other as to the pages of the registers of grants from which they were purported to be made. Based on the testimony of witnesses and the documents themselves, the court held they were sufficiently authenticated and admitted them in evidence [9] Especially in immigration cases, courts should give clear reasons for rejecting the authenticity of documents be- ‘cause of the important nature of determining a porson's immigration status. Many documents from other nations and ‘even the United States may not bear the significant security features like signatures, official scals, watermarks, holo- grams or bar codes that some experts believe should be present.[10} ‘The authenticity or origin of a typewmitten leter may be established by the character of the paper and envelope used, the place and circumstances of the leter's mailing, its postmarks, the direction for its return in case of nonde~ livery, and the manifest probability that the subject matter of its contents was kmown only to the apparent writer and the person to whom it was writen and mailed.[11] “The opinion testimony of a deputy registrar in charge ofa branch of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, i a prose- ution for falsification, with respect to the authenticity or lack thereof of a Social Security card and residen-alien card used by the defendant, related to specialized infomation and was sufficiently rebable to be admissible. The registrar testified to certain charactoristis of resident alien cards and Social Security cards used to determine ‘whether any particular card was authentic, including the seal ofa resident-alien card completely covering the sea, and raised pillars, ink dots, andthe perforated edges ofthe Social Security card, and used reference books to deter- sine whether the documents were authentic [12] $43. Ancient documents Documents and writings purporting to be 20 or more years old are selfauthemticating and are admissible into evidence without the ordinary requirement as to proof of execution and authenticity [1] The Ancient Document Rule applies even if witnesses sre in court and available to testfy.[2] Of course, the documents rmust be relevant and demonstrate sufficient chain of custody.[3] {In an action brought by heirs, the court held that an attomey’s letter, which was more than 30 years old, was properly admitted under the hearsay exception for duly authenticated ancient documents as determination of the admissibility of these documents is within the discretion ofthe trial court [4] In a dispute over a land plat, the evidence failed to show whe authorized the preparation of the plat and for what purpose, The court held that the ancient documents rule only deals with proving the authenticity of offered docu- ‘ments, but did not make the evidence any more relevant or admissible than a newly-executed document [5] ‘The authenticity of exemplars used by certain will proponents’ expert to authenticate the signature appearing on the will was adequately established by circumstantial evidence, cuch as evidence that the documents on which tbe exemplars appeared were found in a cardboard box under the foot of the testator’s bed and the testator’s daughter's testimony that the signatures appearing, on those documents looked like her mother's signature. (6] § 44. Best evidence Federal Rule of Evidence 1002 is often referred to as the "best evidenee rule."[1} The rule provides that "[HJo © 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 25 £88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, ‘except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress."[2] An original ofa writing or recording is the ‘writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph inchudes the negative or any print made. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, ‘any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “orignal.” A duplicate is a ‘couterpart produced by the sane impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, ot by mechanical or electronic re-recording, ot by chemical reproduction, or bby other equivalent techniques that accurately reproduces the original. (3) ‘The purpose of the best-evidence doctrine is to promote accurate factfinding. The doctrine promotes accuracy by creating a preference for the so-called "best evidence" of those content, the original. This concem for accuracy is justified by the fact thatthe precise content of items such as writings i frequently the central issue in a case, But the rules of evidence provide ample room for admitting secondary evidence of contents, such as copies or witness testi ‘mony {4] The rule recognizes the fact thatthe reliability of secondary evidence frequently is sufficiently high, and ‘that this evidenee may present an even greater danger to accurate fact-finding [5] A defendant was convicted of devising and employing a fraudulent scheme in violation of the Securities Act and of fraudulently using the mails. The defendant argued that the admission of a letter tending to prove his guilt Violated the best evidence rule because it was a copy and there was no proof that the original was unobtainable. The court held that the copy of the letter was admissible, The reasons for the best evidence rule preferring an original document to a copy are that a copy is liable to errors on the part ofthe copyist, But this concer diseppears winen a typed carbon copy is involved. The defendant readily admitted composing the letter and did not dispute the contents. “The signanure on an original typewritzn fener is always subject to denial by the alleged sender necessitating indo- pendent identification. There is no reason why a typed original should be accorded a higher degree of authenticity than an exact duplicate, minus a signature, the composition and contends of which are wnchallenged by the writer. [6] Tn an appeal of a conviction for theft, the court held, among other things, that where there was mo question pre~ sented regarding the authenticity ofthe original check which the defendant was accused of stealing or its contents, ‘nor was any other reason advanced for rejection ofthe duplieate, except that it was not the original, there was no ‘error in admitting the duplicate. With the advent of modem technology in the production of facsimiles, no good rea- 50n exists for excluding copies under the rule unless there is a raised issue of authenticity which might be resolved by requising presentation of tha original. The court also noted that the modem ability to secure discovery of docu- meats greatly reduces the opportunity for surprise or injustice through the production at tris] of an undiselosed writ. ten exhibit, The court cited the following example in a footaote: [Mdensification of watermarks, types of paper and inks used in the document may aid in determining its genu- {neness. On the other hand, we also take note of the common practice of the parties in moving the court for permission to substitute copies for the record once the original has been produced. While this practice retains whatever guarantee of trustworthiness use of the original provides, it appears to be a useless formality when ‘genuineness or completeness are not in issue-{Z} In a prosecution for manslaughter, a police detective was permitted to read to the jury the statements of code- fendants from a faxed copy rather than the original over defense objections that the copy was not the best evidence of the statement. There was no proof that the original was lost or destroyed. At a hearing held out of the presence of the jury conceming the admissibility of the statements, the copies were inspected by defense counsel and no objec~ tion was made on account of the absence of the original statement. The officer who testified was present when the statements were given, and hc testified thet the thermofax copy was a trac and exact copy of th original and that the ‘copy was made from the original in his presence. The court held that where a photocopy of the original is produced, there is no chance of a mistake on the part of the scrivener in copying it, and exact replicas of handwriting and fig- ures are produced, Inthe absence of some showing that the copy was altered or otherwise not an accurate cony—or that the watermark cr quality ofthe original paper was an important evidentiary factor, there does not sppear to be any real reason for distinguishing between a photocopy and a duplicate origina [5} ‘nan action for damages for fraud in the sale of corporate stock, the court held that when the original document is still in existence and can be compared with a copy taken from the original, the copy is not admissible, In order to © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34195 Page 26 '88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) show that the original minutes were not genuine, tho plaintiff produced a witness who clsimed to be an experienced typewriter operator, and also had business relations withthe counsel forthe plaisff I was his claim that an exam ration of the official minute book showed that page five of the book had been written by a different operator on @ different typewriter than page six, as indicated by the alleged differences in type, in margining, in punctuation, in capitalizing, and in the watermarks on the paper. Upon this testimony the plaintiff made his claim thatthe page had been fraudulently inserted, and that therefore the original record of the proceedings ofthis meeting had atleast been partly destroyed ot lost, and that the original record of this particular action of the board, the true nature of which is ‘of importance in this dispute, was notin existence, atleast 20 fr as this case was concemed. Under these conditions, itis claimed that a copy of a copy ofthe original is admissible. Expert testimony was intodueed on the part of the defendant against the testimony ofthe plaintiffs witness. The court admitted the witness's testimony and let the jury determine his credibility (9) §.45. Expert opinion testimony ‘The Rules of Evidence permit a witness to testify as to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge as long as that witness is qualified az zn expert [1] Rule 702 expressly recognizes five bases for qualifying an expert: ‘knowledge, skill, experience, tenining, oF education."[2] Most experts will have some background in several of those bases. A comT may consider the totality of a witness's background whiea evaluating the witness's qualifications to testify as an expert. Assuming a witness's backeround quelifies that witness as an expect, the Witness is competent to testify as an expert; there is no additional requirement thst the witness have personal knowledge ofthe facts at issue. A witiess who testifies as an expert may be cross-examined conceming the witness's qualifications, which allows the jury to properly weigh the witness's testimony {3} ‘An. important concept for counsel to keep in mind when considering whether a witness should be retained as an expert for testimony at tial is the acceptance of scientific evidence. The Frye "general acceptance” test for novel scientific evidence has been superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence in federal courts, and thas general accep- tance is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the federal rules, given that nothing in te test of Rule 702 governing expert testimony establishes general acceptance as an absolute prereguiste to admissibility, and that there is no indication either Rule 702 or the rules as a whole were intended to incorporate ‘he general acceptance standard, Under the federal rules atrial judge must ensure that scienifie testimony and evi ‘dence is not only relevant but reliable, Evidentiry reliability is based on scientific validity.{4] For example, basing, its decision on Dauber a bankruptey court determined a Chapter 13 debtor's witness was not qualified to give ex- pert testimony in the field of forensic or questioned document analysis, her methodology was neither reliable nor a ‘generally accepted method of performing handwriting analysis, and oo hor tectimony concerning whether the dedcor’s signature on s mortgage was forged was inadmissibc.[3] None of the witness's methodologies, including the “cross-check” system, had been subjected to peer review, the "slant methodology” used by the witness was flawed because she did not use any ofthe appropriate tools, paper, or plates in her work, the certificate received by the witness indicated that she only possessed the foundation of x qualification as an expert, not the actual qualifica tions, the witness's prior experience included only tWo court cases, one of which occurred before she completed bet course work, and the witness had not completed her apprenticeship, nor was she a candidate for board certification ith ational sociation n another ae, «Goce experts opinions were adsl as based on generly ‘accepted document validity tests performed by a second expert ui and a relative age solvent extraction comparison tet] In @ ving conspiracy To steal pat ‘iver and jewel, the defendants move to excde all expert wines testimony and other evidence relating tthe alleged forgery of the property owncr's signatures on two documents, The appellate court held that: (1) a forensic document examination expertise was outside the scope of Daubert which established reliability standards for expert testimony; (2) the forensic document examiners testimony is admissible as nonscientific or "skied" testimony, and G) possible prejudice deriving from the possible perception by jurors that forensic testimony met scientific stan- dards of reliability did not require exclusion of the testimony-[Z] ‘When expert testimony is based on a scientific principle, the validity of which is well established, questions, conceming the reliability of the expert testimony usually arc limited, The question for the trier-of-fact is whether the expert properly applied the established scientific principle to the facts and whether the expert's credibility is com- promised for reasons including bias [8} ©2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 27 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) IV. MODEL DISCOVERY § 46. Examination of questioned document; checklist “The following is guide for examination of a questioned document. This may eid the practitioner or an expert in determining the relevance or authenticity f a document and whether it isthe best evidence to consider. + Size, shape and appearance of paper — weight, thickness, color, florescence, opacity + Elemental composition of paper —fiber content, pulping process, lignin content, acidity, fillers + Surface properties —sizing, coatings + Watermarks, wiremarks, chainlines + Manufacturer's standards of known production dates + Evidence of perforations, cuting, tearing, folds, holes, staples, clips « Brasures or oblterations + Intrlineations + Disparate spacing of lines, words or Ketters + Arrangement of written or printed material + Evidence of stains, marks, burns, water damage ‘+ Indented writing + Photocopies, location of original + Evidence of insertions, deletions, substirution of pages + Uniform condition of all pages + Binding os lustrates in detail the analysis of identifying paper including the look of the paper, how it was ‘fasted, whatine wat used, the lines on the paper, tears, signature, and other aspects between a will and a codicil. In ‘Sic, te court held that evidence in a challenge for « will and codicil demonstrated thatthe first half sheet contain- ing pages one and two was prepared and annexed 10 the will prior to the execution of the codiciL [1] The first and second pages ofthe will were written onthe front and back of one-half sheet of legal paper, and the third and fourth pages were on the front and back of another half sheet, These two half sheets were not physically connected with tach other, except by two clips, The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth pagos were written on the front and back of @ {ull sheet of legal paper, the ninth tenth, eleventh, and twelfth pages were writen on the font and back of second {ull sheet of legal paper, and the codicil was on a sheet of legal paper, the writing covering about three-fourths of the first page, which constituted the thitteenth page of the testamentary contents of the envelope, The retaining three ‘pages ofthe sheet upon which the codicil was written were blank ‘The second half sheet ofthe will pages three and four, and the other two full sheets, pages five to 12, inclusive, were fastened together by a "Challenge" fastener. This half sbeet and the two sheets were perforated by two round hholes. The fasteners were inserted and crushed down at the front near the top of page three. The edges were rough and hardened. It has been referred to asthe “mushroom or eyelet” end of the fastener. The other end atthe back of ‘the fasteners on page 12 was round and smooth, Under the spread or mushroom of the Challenge fasteners upon the face of page three were several small pieces of paper, indicating thatthe eriginal half sheet forming the other half of the sheet upon which pages three and four were written was apparently originally fastened under the spread or mushroom of the Challenge fasteners and probably later torn off. The half sheet offered for probate, upon which pages one and two are written, was not perforated by the Challenge fastener, and was merely attached to the other half sheet, the ewo shects constituting the remainder ofthe will and the shect upon which the codicil is writen, by ‘means of two wire clips known as “Gem clips placed over the top and holding the first half sheet at and in the front of, and the codicil at the back of, the hatf sheet and the two sheets constituting the body of the will, pages three to 12, ‘The watermark indicated the mamufacturet and year of production of the paper on the first half sheet, pages one tnd two, on the second half sheet, pages three and four, and the remaining two sheets of the will, pages five to 12, inclusive, is “Old Berkshire Mills 1908," end on the last sheet, the codicil, pages 13, 14, 15, and 16, is "Old Berk- ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 3d 195 Page 28 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) shire Mills 1910." Both years are prior tothe dates of execution ofboth instruments. The fronts of the mushroom ot ‘eyelet of the fasteners upon page three made marks by pressing against the bottom ‘of page two which showed ‘through the paper on the front of page one. This pressure mark on the first half sheet, appeared to be the result of long contact, Thora is no pressure mark at the back end of the fasteners onthe codicil. A partially perpendicular tear in the papers, about an inch in length at the top of first and second half sheets and the other two sheets constituting ‘the will and codicil, was made while the paper writings were in the custody of testator. The tear was almost ‘the same. in the half sheets and in the two whole shezts, but slightly less in the codicil, and had not been made recently. There ‘was no doubt the force that caused the tear in the sheets of the will was sufficient to tear the sheet upon which the Codiil was written, It was reasonably inferred that hey were done at the same time, and therefore the codicil was attached to the will at the time it was tom. The folds in the first half sheet consisted of a well worn horizontal fold across the middle of the sheet and two slightly worn folds, one about a fourth of the space down on the ha sheet, and the other about three-fourths of the space, and were precisely opposite similarly wom folds in the other half sheet and the two sheets constituting the will. ‘A microscopic examiiation of the lines printed on the papers disclosed a sight variation. The ruling of the frst half sheet was done at some tinte other than at the time thatthe ruling on the other half sheet and two semaining ‘hosts offered asthe will wae raled, The ink on pages one and two was different from the ink inthe body of pages three to 12, inclusive. On page three, where the cancellation was made, the words "Canceled October 5, 1912, Wil- liam Runkle," were in a third ink. On page 11 the words "William E. R. Smith to be executor" in the margin and William E. R. Smith” and "Est" written over a chemical erasure, were ina dark ink that somewhat resembled the {nk of pages one and two, but was different from it ‘The codicil was in a thick black ink in some respects resembling the ink of pages one and two, but was thicker, heavier, and blacker. The ink in the signature tothe codicil appeared to be the same as the ink in the body of the ‘codicil "The wimesses’sigaatures to the will were in the same ink, but different from that in the body of the will. The ‘winesses' signatures to the codicil were in two different inks, different from the codicil and the signature of the tes- ‘ator. Pages one and two were vitten with a pen different from that which wrote pages three to 12, inclusive. The ‘words "Canceled October 5, 1912, William Runkle," were written with a different pen from that of either pages one and two or the body of the will, pages three to 12, inclusive. The signature to the will on page 12 was mado with 2 pen different fom the one which wrote the body of the page. The body of the codici! was writen with a pen other than the ones referred fo, and the signature to the codicil was written by another pen. The differences in the pens ‘were shown by the appearance under examination by a microscope of strokes and pressure used. The distinguishing, characteristics ofthe handuriting on pages one and two as compared with that of pages three to 12, inclusive, wore ‘hat the leters in the latter were more carefully formed and compactly spaced. This was shown particularly on the lower part of page two where a line was not written upon at the end of paragraph six, and another line was not writ- tem upon after that part of paragraph seven that was on page two. The size of the writing om pages one and two ap- peared to differ from the remaining peges of the will. The handwriting ofthe codicil was larger and coarser chan that of any part of the will. In paragraph 28, page 11, the words "William E, R. Smith” and "East" were written over 2 ‘chemical erasure, which decolorized the original ink, but did not remove it sufficiently to make it impossible to de- cipher what was originally writen, A study with a microscope or magnifying gloss and by photograghically enlars- ing the parts shows thatthe original was "Randolph Rodman of South Orange,” written in the same handwriting as the body of the will $47. Requests for production of documents, generally Any party may serve on any other party a request to produce documents in that partys possession.[i] In any case involving the identification of paper. itis necessary for the partis to discover the substance of the documentary ‘evidence to be used at trial in conjunction with the use of interrogatories and depositions [7] Requests for production ‘can be made only on another party and must: (1) request discovery of “any document or thing that is relevant to the subject matter involved in a pending ac- tons" (@) be stated with "reasonable particular © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 29 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) (8) state a “reasonable tine, place and manner" for inspection of the documents, and (4) must be made on the party in "poaceasion, custody or control” of the documents or other items requested {3] Practice Tip: ‘Counsel should check the precise wording and requirements of the corresponding rule in his or her jurisdiction ‘The panty receiving document requests may: (1) produce the documents as requested; @) object to some or all of the requests, stating the reasons for the objections in the response and producing, documents to which no objection is raised; 3) negotiate with the requesting party to alter the requests or terms of producing the documents; (4) move the court for a protective order or extension of time to respond; G) offer the opposing party access to inspect the receiving party's records “as they are Kept in the usual course of business" and allow the requesting party to search for responsive documents [4] § 48, Illustrative requests for production of documents by platotiff to defendant ‘The following illustrative requests for document production are designed for use in a case requiring expert wit- hess testimony by a gagument, Pit aera TMA ee aM nA examination the xen ot jent as well as copies and computer disks, drafis and meeting notes pertaining to the document, and will also need to examine documents which are similar to it in other words, produced on the same machine or on the same date, or by the same people and using the same source of paper supplies) ‘These requests are of a goneval nature intended to be adapted for usc in a cace involving the identification of pa- per. Counsel will want to seek production of specific documents under counsel's particular factual circumstances presented by an individual plaintiffs claim.(1) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Please make the following documents available to our expert, . Itis understood and agreed that ‘the expert will preserve the documents in their present condition and will not submit them to any destructive testing, ‘without written permission from all parties. The documents will he retained by the examiner for a reasonable time, sufficient to allow thorough examination. The documents being requested are: 1. The original ofthe dated ‘which is the subject ofthis examination 2. Any and all copies of that instrument which might have been executed as originals. 3, Any carbon copies of the original subject document. 4, Any NCR (No Carbon Required) pages that might have been a part of the original subject document, © 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig, US Gov. Works,88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 30 88 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) 5. Any computer disks or tapes on which the drafs ofthe subject document are stored. 6. Any meeting notes that would support the purported history of the subject document, 7. Any accounting papers or receipts that would support the purported facts or history of the subject document. 8, Blank examples ofthe standard forms on which the subject document was prepared. These blank forms are to bbe examples from approximately the same time period asthe subject document. 9. Blank examples of paper purchased from the same manufeeturer ftom [date] to [date]. 10, An example of any other document dated at approximately the same time as the subject document, and pre- ppared on like paper stock. 1. An example of any other document dated at approximately the same time as the subject document, and pre- pared on the same typewriter. 12, An example of any other docunent dated at approximately the same time as the subject document, and pro- pared on the same computer printer. 13. An example of any other document dated at approximately the same time as the subject document, and pre- pared by the same typist 14, Am example of any other document copied on the same copy machine in use at the time that copies were ‘made of the subject document. 15, An example of records similar to the subject records, kept by the same persons who prepared the subject re- cords. Practice Tip: In a medical records ease, the roquester should request any other charte kept by the same nurses and doctors at ap- proximately the same time. Also, arrangements and agreements should be made to preserve the confidentiality of all records provided. § Illustrative interrogatories ‘The following questions are illustrative of what can be asked in interrogatories in an action involving @ ques- tioned document or the identification of paper. The questions are designed to cliit detailed information about the origin, history, chain of custody, method of preparation, current Jocation, and disposition of the documents. The questions represent examples of the inquiries counsel could inchide in interrogatories. Counsel should tailor the in- terrogatory questions tothe specific factual circumstances presented by an individual claim, INTERROGATORIES 1. Who is the manufacturer of the paper used to prepare the document? 2, What isthe manufacturer's description of the product? Na 3. Who isthe supplier of the papor used to prepare the document? 4, What isthe fiber content of the paper used? ‘© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim 10 Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34195 Page 3t 88 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) 5. Does the paper contain a watermark, wiremar, chainline or any other identifying characteristics? 6. When was the document in question prepared? 7. Was it prepared in its entirety at hat time? 8. Who prepared the document? 9. Was any other person present when the document was prepared? 10, When was the handwriting (hypewriing, printing, drawing, photography, cc] added tothe pages? 11, Waen was it ined? ‘12, What is the relationship of the signers of the document to the custodian of the document? 13, Where was the subject document prepared? 14, Where was it signed? 15. Where has it been stored since it was signed? 16. Who comols the storage of the document? 17, Who is the custodian of the document? 18, Wher is the location of the document now? 19, Flow many copies wete produced? 20, Who is the custodian ofthe copies? 21. Who received draft copies? 22. Who is the custodian of the draft copies? 23, Who received finished copies? 24. Who is the custodian of the finished copies? 25, Where are they located now? 26. How many signed originals were executed? 27. Who has those originals? 28, Where ar the originals located now? 29. Was the complete document assembled before it was signed? ‘© 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 32 88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) 30. Was the document fastened with specific types of fasteners (staples, clips, ete)? 31. The name and address of the company or persons who printed the standard forms? 32. The type of paper the standard forms were printed on? 33. How was the subject document prepared (fypewriter, computer, handuaitten, etc.)? 34. On what type of typewriter, ot on what type of computer or other piece of equipment was the document pre- pared? 35. What operating system does that computer use? 36. What version of the word processing software docs it use? 37. In.what formet is this document stored? 38. Whereis the electronic version of the document stored? 39. At which workstation was the subject document prepared? 40, By what filename isthe subject document identified in your document storage? 41, On which computers is the document stored? 42, Who is tho custodian of those computers? 43. Which typist prepared the subject document? 44, Who was present when it was prepared? 45. If copies were made, who made them? 446. What copy machine was used to make te copies? 47, How many copies were made? 48, Who was present when it was written? 49. Who was present when it was signed? '50, When it was signed, were al of the partes seated? 51. Did anyone sign ina standing position? 52. Did anyone tae the subject instrament home or to any other location to sign it? 53. Ifso, where? 54, When did they retum the signed document? © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIJUR POF 34 195, Page 33 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) 55, What are the names and current addresses of any witnesses to the signing of this document? 56, Were there any notations handwritten on the document, such as initials, notes, strikethroughs, erasures? 57. Who made those notations? 58. Who was present atthe time the notations were made? 159. What inks were used to prepare the document? 60, Is there more than one type of ink used in the document? 61. Will you consent to having our expert remove any staples that bind the subject document? ‘62, Will you consent to having our expert perform chemical testing of a sample of the paper used in the dacue ‘ment? 663, Will you consent to having our expert perform tests on the ink used in the documen7(1} ‘V. PROOFS OF IDENTIFICATION OF PAPER {§ 50, Proof of document chain of custody ‘The following proof illustrates direct testimony by an investigator proving the chain of custody of a questioned document,[1][After introduction and identificatton of the witness.] 2 Are you employed? Tam an investigator, employed by ‘Have you been an investigator for long? have been working in the investigations field for__ years. ‘Were you working as an investigator on [date]? Yes. During that time, what did you do that is relevant to the proceedings before this court today? POP DP OP Twas investigating a matter and certain documents were turned over to me that I placed in evidence ceavelopes. The documents were given to me by Oneach envelope I wrote my name, the date, and How the enclosed document had been obtsined. ‘What did you do with the envelopes? T took each ofthe envelopes containing the documents to the. police laboratory. ‘What happened there? > ere At the police lab a document examiner took possession of the envelopes and gave me a receipt for them, Q T now show = you several items marked as_—= Plaintiff's Exhibits ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34195, Page 34 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) ‘through for identification, Please identify them. A ‘These are the documents that T gave to the police laboratory documents examiner on * [date Q How do you know this? These ae my notations on the envelope, my uame, the date, and some auditional information {The documents are offered in evidence] {§ 51. Proof of document chain of custody—Inustrative cases ‘The following cases are illustrative of evidence demonstrating chain of custody issues: + Certain insurance policies proffered by the insureds assignee as original, complete and actual were suffi- ciently authenticated by testimony of the assignee's atiomey and the insured's president and attorney, all of ‘witom had personal knowledge of the documents, and by the documents’ location and content, and would be admitted on a motion for summary judgment, even though the insurer's contrary evidence raised questions about ‘their chain of eustody, as the possible defeets concerned the weight rather than admissbility.[1] + Absent the medical records exception to the hearsay rue, the proponents of a blood alcohol test result are rex © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works,‘88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 36 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) ‘moment ago, [participate in @ variety of continuing education programs to keep up with scientific developments Q ‘Do you devote all your working time to the examination of documents? Yes, 10. ‘How Jong have you been involved in the study of documents? > 2 > Thave been involved in this field for years Q Dy you belong to any professional organizations that are involved inthe field of forensic examination of docu- ments? A ‘Yes. I belong to the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners and the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners and {ptofessional orgenizations) Q DDo the organizations you have listed require any particular quatifcstions for adminance? ‘Yes. [Description of requirements of each organization], Do you currently serve in any official capacity in any of these organizations? Yes, [Description of positions held. Have you ever instructed others in the feld of forensic document examination? ‘Yes, Thave. I have lectured at [schools or police academies} ‘Asa forensic document examiner, which agencies or institutions have you worked for, if any? Thave worked for the police departments of [cities], for the [states] Attorey[s] Genetal, and for [financial or ‘other institutions). “Do you regulary consult document examines? a list of books and other publications that you use in the course of your work 3s a ‘Yes 1do. ‘What publications do you regularly consult? [Describe books, treatises, texts, magazines}. Do you regularly consult professional websites on the internet? Yes Ido. PPo>r OP What websites do you use? ‘The U.S. Department of Justice Forensic Science Communications, American Society of Questioned Document ‘Examiners and the Forensic Science Society. Q ‘Do you subscribe t any professional joumals or publications? A Yes, I receive various professional joumals, including the International Yournal of Foreasic Document Examln- es, the Journal of Forensic Document Examination and the Joumal of Forensie Sciences. Q © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig, US Gov. Works.‘88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 37 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) “Has any of your work been published in professional joumals or other publications? ‘Yes. Ihuve had articles publised in [list professional publications in which the expert hes been published] Do you have a laboratory? Yes, Ido, Describe some of your specialized equipment. Pear oP My laboratory equipment includes various magnifVing glasses, devices for measuring space and structure, a ste- rTeomicroscope, an infrared scanning system, ultraviolet longwave and shortwave lights, a latent image developer, an electrostatic detection apparstus, 2 video spectral comparator, and a variety of photographic equipment. Q ‘Has your opinion as a document examiner been acecpted as the opinion of an expert in the district courts of [stater? Yes. ‘And in federal courts? ‘Yes, How many times have vou qualified in court as an expert? About. ‘times. ‘And have you been offered as an expert on all those occasions? Por GP BP ‘Yes, Thave, Q ‘Have you ever been ruled unqualified to testify in court as an expert witness in the field of forensic document ‘examination? A Never {§ 54. Proof of the qualification of an expert document examiner—Illustrative eases ‘The following cases are illustrative of the qualification and acceptance of a document examiner as an expert wwitness.[1] + A tral court did not zbuso its discretion in qualifying a witness as an expert in forensic document examination, even thoug he wines fed the et 10 become 8 member ofthe American Board of ree DESIRE Sag and ws nly a rsnce member ofthe American Society of Forensic Dociment Examiners, where the “witness testified that she became a member of the Southeastem Association of Forensic Document Examiners, that she had been performing handwriting analysis for the Georgia Crime Lab for eight years, and that she had ‘deen qualified as an expert in criminal cases approximately 18 times (2) + A defendants! Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony Conceming Handwriting Comparison and Authorship or, Alternatively, for an Evidentiary Hearing was denied in a case in which the question came down to the qualifi cations of the expert proposed in the case. A review of the expert's background revealed formal training, fram ‘the New York City Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; certification and repeated re- certification by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, including proficiency tests; and some 29 years of experience in forensic document examination with the New York City Police Deparment and the United States Postal Inspection Service, including regularly administered blind proficiency testing, and review ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Ciaim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195, Poge 38 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) ‘of his work at the latter ageucy by a second examiner in each case, The court found these qualifications were sufficient,(3] + A handwriting analyst was qualified to testify as an expert, tthe tril of a contest ofa holographie wil, where ‘the analyst hed testified as an expert in document examination over 200 times, in several states, and was corti- fied by a national organization of document exeminers.{4] + Ina rape prosecution, a sheriff's investigator was qualified as an expert in the area of questioned documents and testified that the writings contained in a sealed, stamped envelope, purportedly written by the respondent, ‘were in fact authored by the respondent, leading to the reasonable inference that saliva samples secured from the eavelope and stamp were produced by the respondent.[5] + In ¢ prosecution for armed bank robbery, the government offered the qualifications ofa witness as an expert in ‘photographic comparison and examination of a questioned document. The PBI agent was properly permitted to testify that certain items of clothing found in the defendants apartment were the same as those depicted in a ‘bank surveillance photograph {6} +The tial court didnot use its discretion ina forgery prosecution in asceptng a member ofthe state police as an expert inthe analysis of questioned documents, including handwriting, after a thorough examination ofthe experts qualifications (7) + An appellate court in Texas roversed a jury trial finding that the plaluiff did not prove forgery and that the tes- timony of the expert witness was compelling [8] In the case, 2 questioned documents examiner who fad taken {wo courses at Northwestern University in preparation for his profession; had studied and worked with many of the leading experts in the United States on the scienco of identifying signatures; who is a member ofthe Ameri can Socisty of yeiap Whose writings had been published in periodicals in METS: renter! ‘a8 a speaker before his associations and other such groups: who had more than 25 years; wao maintains his office and laboratory as a fall time profession and whose qualifications were admitted by the opposing party, testified positively that in his opinion, that he defendants forged an oil and gas lease and 2 mineral grant. He elaborated in detall as to how he arrived at his conclusions and used enlarged photographs of the known and questioned signatures to establish his opin- ion, comparing the signature of the defendant on the questioned document with his eignature on the admitted document and a number of checks later signed by hi + In forgery prosecution, where examination of a witness as to his qualifications tended to amply establish him 235 an expert, the tral court did not abusc its discretion in permiing him to testify as an expert oa questioned documents. (5) § 56. Proof of procedure followed by an expert examining paper ‘The following isan illustrative proof of the procedure followed by an oxpert in examining papet.{1] ‘Counsel should consult with the expert shout the procedures to he used, and in particular, ask whether the paper ‘examined will be destroyed in the examination process. For example, the use of destructive testing methods on original documents by a defendant’ expert warranted, as sanctions, an order preventing the defendant from intro- ducing its proffered fingerprint evidence, even though there was no evidence thatthe defendant or its expert acted in bad faith. The defendant performed the analyses on the documents without providing sufficient prior notice to the plaintiff andthe court, preservation of the documents in their original state was a erucial precondition for conducting accurate forensic tests on thea, destructive testing was prejudicial in that it precluded the plein or her expert from {independently examining the documents or duplicating tests, the prejudice could not be cured because ofthe expert's failure to produce a pictorial history of the tests, and therefore, the experts conduct in handling and testing the documents fell far short ofthe standard of faimess required throughout the discovery process. [2] § 56. Testimony of document examiner regarding exami tion of questioned document. © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 39 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) {After introduction and identification of the witness] Q Is thor any set procedure that you follow in examining the paper used ina questioned document? Yes, thee is. A Q Ploaso explain A First, | observe and examine the weight, thickness, color and opacity of the paper. am familiar with paper ‘manafacturers and know how to access information about their products and datos of production of those products. I then look for watermarks, wiremarks or chainlines on the paper. If am unable to determine the provenance of the paper by these methods, I test the paper for its elemental composition by performing chemical and microscopic tests of a small piece of the paper. These tests can identify the fiber content of the paper and what pulping process was used to manufacture the paper. Q A. ‘What other kinds of features do you look for? look for tears, rips, holes, cuts, staple holes, clip marks, erasures, obliterations, stains, marks, buns, water damage, and indented writing for clues to the identity of the person who possessed or handled the paper. | also look at any writings on the paper—machine printing, typewriting,interlineations disparate spacing of lines, words or letters, the arrangement of written or printed material. I determine whether the paper is a photocopy or an original document. [look for evidence of insertions, deletions or substitution of pages and for the uniform condition ofall ‘pages in & multi-page document. In other words, I study the entire document from its basic chemical and physical ‘components to its identity as a whole set of papers and writing. a A Do you do any other procedures? T'may. If | am concemed about the ink used, I will est that. If it appears the signature is questionable, I will do comparisons and use a microscope to examine it eareflly. I have alzeady stated the procedures used if just the paper is in question, ‘Thank you. §57. Testimony of document examiner regarding examination of questioned document—IMtstrative eases The following cases are illustrative of what is being looked for during an expert's examination of a questioned document, including using certain procedures during the examination: + A possible alteration of a father's will, as suggested by thc son's expert opinion about the initiating of pages and the different numbers of staple holes in different pages, did not establish that the alleged changes were ‘made without the formal requisites ofa will as there was no evidence that any possible alteration of the will was made after it was formalized, and the changes, if any, were just as consistent with having been made before signing as they were with having been mad afer the will was signed,(2] + The existence of staple holes af the top of a will as evidence was insufficient to establish thatthe will was not duly oxeouted, where, regardless of when and why the staples were removed, which was a matter of pure specu lation, the testimony of the attorney who drafted the will was clear that the will remained in his office after its ‘execution until its offer for probate, and thatthe will in question was the will executed by the decedent in the at- torney's presence. [2] + The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a jury's guilty verdict in a murder prosecotion based in part on ‘an expert's testimony thatthe paper used to wrap sticks of dynamite was the same kind that the defendant had ‘obtained and used to make « bomb that killed the victim [3] + Tn the probate of a will, an examination of tho purported will revealed thot: © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34195, Page 40 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Pacts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) (1) the paper of all four pages of the instrument was of the same brand and grade; Q) the type on sll four pages appeared to be from the came typewriters G) the staples holding the cover and the four pages had never been removed; G) the handwriting on pages three and four of the instrument appeared to have heen written with the same en; and ) the signature on page four of the instrument appeared to be the same signature as that identified as the sig- nature of testatrix on page three of the instrument [4] + The court upheld a defendants conviction for conspiracy to counterfeit currency because the FBI's counterfeit analyst subjected scraps end bond paper found in the defendant's home to scientific tests and found that the scraps, the paper samples and two counterfeit bills had identical fiber and were qualitatively identical by spec. frographic analysis; one counterfeit bill per spectrophotometer test had the identical green shade as the soraps: ‘microscopic examination of the six counterfeit bills and the scraps showed so many cammon defects tht, in his expert opinion, the face ofthe scraps and the bills were printed from the same plate or negative,[5] + Tn a case involving the proper classification under the Tariff Act of 1930 of an importation of printing paper, the court held that. except for the sizing, the imported paper was of the elas of paper known in 1930 as stan. dard newsprint, and that testimony of the degree of sizing in paper neither affected its utlty in the printing of ‘newspapers nor catered into the commercial understanding of what was standard newsprint paper aad thus the plaintiffs sustained the burden of proving that the importation fell within the class of paper which was chiefly ‘used forthe printing of newspapers [6] + A military board of review affirmed a court-martial finding thatthe accused was guilty of receiving unauthor- {ged aid on an examination. The aecused was cbserved by the officer giving the exomination glancing in the di- rection of the papers of the students on cither side, and, after looking at other papers, he made erasures on his own, Of the accused's eight answers, six coincided substantially with the answers on the papers of the officers on either side, one was the comect answer for the original examination and one was entirely wrong. Tt was shown that if the computations contained in the original examination were correctiy used solutions different from the special exemination solutions would defintely result. No evidence was presented to indicate thatthe accused's solutions were the results of honest mistakes and that by mere chance they coincided with his neighbors’ numerical solutions (7) + The appellant was dismissed from his job for altering his employment record by using a chemical ink remover and inserting false information in order to obtain unemployment benefits [8] + In an action to set aside certain transfers of property, @ surety on a written instrument was released by a mate- rial alteration of the instrument even though the alteration did not increase the surety’ liability bocause there hhad been some strong erasures made on the note where it showed that the figure 2 in the original date had been erased and the 3 that was written over it had been erased and a9 made over it and in erasing these figures it had practically worn through the paper and in making the stem to the 9 of the 1929 the stem went through the pax per.{(9] + In an appeal for a conviction for counterfeiting, the evidence disclosed that the Secretary of the Treseury adopted a distinctive paper for obligations and securities of the United State; this paper was » high grade rog ‘bond having a sharp rattle very litle gloss, and short fine silk fibers distributed throughout. In 1936, respon dents had possessioa of paper of practically the same color, weight, thickness, and appearance as this distinctive government paper and cut tothe dimensions of $20 government obligations; the respondents’ paper rattled like ‘enue money, it did not have red and blue silk fibers throughout, but red and blue marks were so expertly dee signed upon its surface that one judge, dissenting below, after a cateful examination of these marks with a mag ‘© 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 41 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) nifying glass, was still wholly uncertain whether they were actually woven in the fabric or were traced on the surface. This unique paper, found in the defendant's possession, was sufficient to sustain the conviction [10] + In sn action for defamation brought by a surviving widow and heirs the court upheld the trat judge ruling bbased on the opinion of two experts that the date on the oil, gas and mineral leases had not been altered. After @ ‘most careful examination the paper upon which the date had been writen showed ao evidence of erasure or of the use of acid, in order to effect a change in the date. The paper used was of a soft and cheap kind, ifthe date hand been erased and written over, the ink would have apread porceptibly in the figures of the attempted new date. On the contrary, the figures were clear-cut and distinct and writen on the biue line running through the paper. It would not be possible to have obliterated with acid either of these figures without affecting the blue Tine itslf, which lao remained infact. {11] + Ina Kentucky case, an examination of the original paper used for checks disclosed many erasures on the face of the paper. There was unmistakable evidonce that the checks had been placed on a spindle such as bankers generally employ to hold canceled checks, They also bore absolute evidence of erasures and alteration. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to explain an alteration once the defendant proved there was an altera- tion. [12] + A Missouri plaintiff filed a creditor's claim against an estate but the appellate court found that he failed to pro- duco aufficient evidence showing that the debtor was indeed the decedent. One witness, however, testified that he had tested one of the notes microscopically and found a line of erasure that disturbed the paper iber.{13] § 58, Proof of document's provenance and age by means of the paper's watermark ‘The following facts and circumstances tend to establish the provenance and age of a document by means of the ‘watermark of the paper on which the document was written. + Existence of watermark + Fact that watermark is exclusive property of one paper manufacturer « Fact that paper bearing this watermark was manufactured for a timited period of time only + Record of history of watermark from manufacturer's (ies ‘The following proof presents the identification of the age of paper by means ofits watermark. The proof shows ‘that a particular document involved in a lawsuit could not have been written on the date alleged by the document's ‘proponent. The proof consists of the testimony of an expert witness, a paper chemist employed by the manufacturer of the paper in question [1] § 59. Proof of document's provenance and age by means of the paper's watermark—Testimony of paper chemist [After introduction and identification of the witness.) Q What is your occupation or profession? A Tam a paper chemist for the Paper Company. Q How long have you been employed by the Paper Com- pany? A Ten years Q ‘On [date], did you do anyihing relative to the proceedings before this court? © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 42 88 Am, Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Idi, ‘What did you do? | examined end analyzed the paper on which a document involved in this lawsuit was written. At whose request did you examine this document? Atyour request. apr ere > now show you defendant's Exhibit No, 1 (showing exhibit, already introduced in evidence] and ask you if you can identify i? em This he docuent ht examined and analyzed pursuant to your request on [date]. iillane result of your examination, were you able to identify or establish the age of the paper on which this docu- ‘ment was written? ‘Yes, By what means were you able to identify the age of these shests of paper? By an examination of the watermarks on these sheets. or DP Please tell us what the term “watermark” means. ‘A watermark is a mark that is impressed into paper when itis run through what is called a "dandy roller." At the ‘time paper is put through this dandy roller, it is still very wet and its fibers are very loose. The dandy roller is a ey! inder that has a web-like surface. If paper is to be watermarked, a wire outline, somewhat like a brand, is attached to ‘the dandy roller, When the paper goes through this roller, the wire mark is pressed into the paper's fibers and re- ‘mains in the paper after the printing process is completed, This mark can be seen plainly when the paper is held up against alight. Q A Did you recognize the watermark of the paper on which this particular document was written? did. It is one of my company’s watermarks. Q A Does your company still use this watermark? ‘We still use a part of it. The other past the letter "I" that is next to the foot of the sketched figure of a lion, was used only for a mited period of time. a. A ‘Would you please desoribe the watermark on these sheets of paper for us? ” Certainly. The watermark consists of an outlined figure of a lion, rampant over a shield, with the letter “y* next to the lion's foot. Beneath the shield, the words, "Finest Quality Bond” appears in outlined letters that are half an inch high. Q ‘Why did the letter" appear inthis watermark for only limited period of time? A ‘Because this lor was used to dato only a single run of pape. Does the Paper Company keep records of all runs of paper that ae processed firough its mills? a © 2010 Thomaon Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 43 88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 34 19S (Originally published in 2006) ‘Yes, sample sheets of every run of paper, marked by specific commencement and termination dates, are kept in cour files as part ofthe history of each rum of paper we make. Q Do you have a file for this particular watermark? A do. [brought it to court with me. Q oes this file show the date on which the Paper Com- pany started to use this particular watermark? A Yes, Does it also show the date on which the Company stopped using this watermark? A @ A Q ‘Now, will you look onee again at the document you examined and tell us whether any date appears on this document? A Itdoes. ‘What ae those dates? ‘The watermark was first used on April 15, 1960. It was discontinued on June 15, 1960. ‘The date “Ianuary 30, 1957" appears atthe top of the first page of this document. ” As a result of your examination ofthis document and the watermark history of the paper on which it was typed, ‘ean you tell us whether or not the document could have been writen on this paper on the date set forth in the intra+ ment? A Tean, Q ‘Could it have been written on the date set forth in the document? A, 'No, it could not have been written on that date. @ ‘Why couldn't it have been written on that date? A Because the paper on which this document was written was not manufactured until more than three years after the date that appears on the document. Q ‘Thank you very much, that will be all. '§ 00. Proof of document's provenance and age by means of the paper's watermark Illustrative cases ‘The following enses ae illustrative of evidence of a paper's age by memns of a watermark: ‘In an appeal of a conviction for mal fraud, a former client presented forensic evidence that the bond paper on ‘which the petition was printed contained a watermark and date code thet, according to the manufacturer, corre- sponded to the year 1997, and thus the bond paper could not have been manufactured before 1997,[1] + Ina case of counterfeiting, the defendant removed the ink from genuine $5 bills with a chemical solution and ‘used an inkjet printer to produce facsimiles of $100 bills on the blank sheets. These fakes had the feel of cur- rency and could pass some tests employed to identify genuine bills. For example, currency paper has colored ‘throads, a security strip, and a watermark, Some features of real currency papet depend on the denomination: © 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 44 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 193 (Originally published in 2006) ‘cach security stip contains the value, and the watermark is « shadow of the bill's portrait. So someone who looked closely at the defendants products would have noticed that the watermarks depicted Lincoln rather than Franklin, and that the security strip said $5 rather than $100. Tiny type is hard to read, however, and the differ ence in the faces may escape notiee, so hogus bills om real currency paper are more likely to evade detection than are bills printed on sliced-up footscep [2] + A widow in bankruptcy brought an adversary proceeding to recover for her stepson's alleged tortious interfer- cence with her expectancy of inheritance or gif.[3] A forensic document expert performed an extensive exami ration of a living trust, He found that page two was added to the trust document after the date of July 13, 1994. ‘The second page, where the Living Trust was made irrevocable had a different type of paper with no water- mark, whereas the other pages all contained a watommark, "Eatons Eminence bond US. Berkshire." Addition- ally, the expert found thatthe printing on this second page is also a different type of printing process indicating that it was printed ata different time and/or on a different printer. The toner spattering, when inspected under & microscope revealed thatthe toner is muuch broader on the watermarked pages. The toner spattering on page tO {is much cleaner, meaning less spattcring of toner. Finally, the expert found thatthe staple-hole patterns did not match other pages, indicating that pages were substituted subsequent to the inital completion of the document. ‘The staple holes on page three also showed a marked discrepancy with other pages. As an example, there were significantly fewer staple holes on page three than page four. The indentations of the staple wire patterns were not consistent with other pages. The holes and indentations did not line up. Another expert reviewed the trust document and came to similar conclusions. The second expert confirmed that page two has no watermark, that ‘the staple pattems are different from the other pages, and that it was printed with a different quality printer. He algo points out that page three has atzple-holo pattoms that are incensistent with the rest ofthe document. Jn ad- ition, he noted that the watermark on page three is upside-down, indicating that it was inserted into the docu- ‘ment at another time than the other pages stating that ‘page two was inserted to replace a different page at some point... [and it] is patently obvious that page three was inserted at some point to replace a different page.” + A bankruptcy debtor and attomey were charged with making false statements. The evidence presented at tial proved thatthe trust document could not have been ereated in 1989 becauoe a watermark in the paper on which ‘the trust document was Written established thatthe paper was not manufactured until 1991 [4] + A essor brought an action secking declaration that the lease for certain premises had temminaied as ofa certain date. An examiner of questioned documents testified as an expert and compared the lease and “Exhibit B," ‘hich cootained the calculation of rent. Based on the watermarks, the paper used foreach document was in ex- jstence on the dae the lease was prepared. The expert also confirmed tat the solubility method of analysis was intended to determine the ages of writings on the same document. However an examination of *eackling was nota valid means of determining age. He could not determine the date either document was created or refute the Gate of the lease. He could not say whether Exhibit B or the lease was the older document (5} * Three excfelons brought a writ of mandate to compel state election officals to register them as voters. State fw, intended to reduce voter fraud, provided, among other things, that all ballots be fumished at public ex- pense, om paper bearing an undisclosed watcrmark, consecutively numbered with a corresponding stub, and printed with the names of the duly nominated candidates in alphabetical order. In addition, private booths were provided forthe actual marking ofthe ballots; each voter received his ballot directly from the eleetion official at the polis; and in marking a ballot each voter was requized to use a stamp and ink pad furnished in the voting booth. [6] + Am action by a film manufactur against a film processor for an injunction based upon the manufacturer's al- legation of unfair competition, alleging thatthe film processor was inftinging upon the manufacturer's trade~ ‘mark and trade dress and misleading the public into belief that the processor's Kiosks were operated by the ‘manufacturer and that the manufacturer was developing the films left by customers for processing. The fm rmanufecturer would not be enjoined ffom using a watermark containing its trademark on paper sold to various ealers on the theory that the watermark would mislead a customer into believing that print made thereon was sade by the manufacturer {7} + Ina conspiracy prosecution, several blank sheets of watermarked paper which had been notarized by another © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 45 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) ‘were properly admitted where there was evidence that some of the paper on which some of the typed letters ‘were written had similar watermarks [8] + An employes of a Chicago office supply and stationery company testified that he had been employed by the for 30 years, and that as the person in charge of the printing of legal forms he was familiar with the ‘methods by which the company recorded watermarks on the legal forms sold under its trade name. On the notes, ‘which bad been introduced in evidence there appeared a watermark cipher which established that the paper on which the notes hed been printed had not been manufactured until the year 1956, some two to four years after the dates which the notes bore, This testimony was never rebutted [9] Ina customs court case to determine a tariff on bond paper, the plaintiff's witness testified that plaintiff's paper is nota bond paper, explaining that the fibers inside the sheet of plaintiffs exhibit are very long, comparatively, ‘and widely dispersed, whereas, in a bond paper, owing to the longer beating. period, the fibers are close and shorter, In addition, bond paper hos a lower finish, without the surfacing found in the exhibit and bond paper is made of a better grade of pulp, is run mote slowly on the machine, is made on a fuer mesh, and more o: less contains a watermark. He also stated that the plaintiffs exhibit is not a writing paper because it is not sufti- ciently hard sized; its cream color is more like that of a printing paper; it does not passess the requisite high opacity of a bond paper, and, although jt takes per-and-ink writing, it docs not do so with the fineness to be found in plaintiffs illustrative exhibit, which the wimess produced a5 a sample of bond paper {10} + Ina trial for blackmail, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, employed in the laboratory as & document examiner, was found to be qualified to be an expert, and testified in detail as to the writings used by the defendant to tareaten the vitim, He illustrated his testimony by photographic enlargements, pointing out similar and identical defects of alignment, spacing, depth of impressioa, and other defects of various fype- letters, common to all the specimens, inchuding the extortion leter, and giving it as his opinion that they were ‘writen on the same machine, that is the one identified as being taken from the home of the defendant. The na- ture and combination of the characteristics pointed out tended to identify the individval or particular machine used in the writings. The witness also testified to che physical characteristics of the paper and expressed the ‘opinion tht the paper used in the extortion note and that used in the bill defendant presented to a third person and marked ‘paid in full'and signed by him, were similar, pointing out the similarity in fiber, fining. and water- ark (L1] ‘Ina proceeding to dishar an attorney for misusing his govemmental authority, the respondent did not admit re- ceiving 6 lettr referring to a losn of $250,000 “which we are endeavoring to place through you” (respondent). ‘Te was established that this lemer was typed by a secretary on the same typewriter on which the respondent's col- Teague was at that time corresponding with respondent conceming one of the colleague's real estate ventures. ‘The paper on which it was written bore the government watermarks [12] «In a probate case an alleged will, dafed April 4, 1905, was sent to a clerk of court on August 9, 1934 by an anonymous individual. The will was written on ruled foolscap paper (a primarily British term for a sheet of ‘writing or printing paper measuring approximately 13 by 16 inches), purportedly signed by the testator, and en= closed in a stamped but uncanceled envelope. This envelope, in tum, was enclosed in a foolscap wrapper of the ame type a: the paper on which the will was written. The foolseap wrapper bore the words, "To be opened at ny death," and was contained in an envelope addressed tothe clerk of court, Undisputed expert testimony at the ‘proceedings showed that though the will on the foolscap paper inside the stamped envelope was dated April 4, 1905, the envelope itself was watermarked "1925" and was not issued before January 1, 1925. This watermark ‘was plainly visible after the envelope had been slit open. In holding, the will to he an obvious forgery, the court stated: "On the assumption that the document was prepared by the decedent, it was necessary for him to have kept for 20 years or more a sheet of the same foolscap paper as that upon which he ad made his will. The creases of the outer foolscep wrapper showed that it was folded for the first time and for the express purpose of ‘wrapping the stamped envelope."{13] +The plaintiff sued a paper company for infringement of a patent for a paper-making machine. The alleged in- ‘vention was confined to the watermarking rolls for theve machines. The specified object was "to provide im. proved means whereby a web of paper as it passes through a paper making machine may be impressed with de- ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195, Page 46 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) signs or marks commonly termed ‘watermarks’ which serve to identify or give distinctive character to the pa- per." The impression of "watermarks" has two purposes: (1) To identify bond or other writing paper in such @ ‘manner and at such stage of its manufactur thatthe "identification marks" will not be so distinct as vo interfere ‘with writing or typing thereon, (2) to give distinctive character to the paper, or “decorative marking,” commonly used in wrapping peper, in such manner and at such stage in its manufactute that the design is impressed in the surface ofthe finished paper and is clearly visible at al times. The court diseusses the various purposes of wa- termarks and the different methods used to make them.{4] + In aproceeding contesting a will, the paper on which the will was writen bore the watermati "Alpine Flax." It ‘was from 2 cheap tablet of paper and was similar fo paper customarily used by the deceitent, Mrs. Wood. A friend of the decedent testified that Mrs, Wood brought two or thre tablets from Michigan, that the friend wrote bulletins on them without noticing them particularly. that after Mrs. Wood's death she took home the remainder ofa tablet which she thought Mrs. Wood had brought with her from Michigan, and the next spring, on counsels request, made a search and found the pastcbourd back and one shest of the watermarked paper in her apartment. ‘No lewers bearing the watermark were writen in Michigan before Mrs. Wood left. None was writen in Califor- nia until September 29, when the friend wrote the decedent's son on this paper. Contestants argued that, asthe son took away Mrs. Wood's belongings, the tablet had been purchased in Cafifomia and was brought east by him. That theory was demonstrated to be false by te fc tha aftr the son had gone, the friend wrote the dece- dent's daughter on similar paper bearing the watermark. The fact that this paper was once in Mrs. Wood's pos- session is important. The inference is that the tablet remained in California after the son departed, and it doce not appear how ke later could have procured the peper to forge the will. tis not probable that he would have sent back to California for it nor that he had time to do so after the other will Was tead [15] + A purported will of a decedent, who died March 12, 1902, was allegedly found 21 years after the decedent's cath, The will was dated January 24, 1902, and was written on a sheet of typewriter paper that was water ‘marked “erkshite Bond USA." A manager ofthe firm that manufactured this paper testified that he had prepared the sketch for a watermark, "Berkshire Bond USA," on December 19, 1905, and that the letter "B" in the word. “Berkshire” had been dropped from the watermark on five lots of paper manufactured between December 12, 1907 and October 11, 1909. The court held that since this testimony left no room for reasonable doubt that the {instrument was written on paper that did not exist until over five years after the alleged testator’s death, there ‘was no escape from the conclusion that the instrument was a forgery. [16] * A defendant was charged with fraud by offering forsale property that he did not ow. Evidence was admitted of a warranty deed that the defendant had a notary’s seal made from the impression of the notarial seal of a no- tary; there was also expert testimony thatthe signature of the vietim upon the deed, and that ofthe notary were forged; that the impression made by the notary’s seal upon this deed was made by the seal which had been seized, which could be recognized hecause of certain peculiarities; that the deed was written upon the type. write, which had been seized, and not upon a printed blank, but upon paper like that scized in the defendait’s spartments and bearing the watermark “wranseript bond."[27] + The appellant claimed that a certain kind of cigaretto paper was subject to the payment of « lower customs duty because the paper contained fess magnesia than does ordinary cigarent paper. The evidence showed litle ifference berween the physical appearances and characteristics of the appellant's paper as to quality, color, ‘weight and width, and what was concededly a cigarette paper except that the appellants trademark, “Hygeia," ‘was watermatked on the paper. When 9o marked it was made especially for appeltant and obiained it from a cigarette-paper distributing agency in Vienna, Austia. The paper was imported on reels or bobbins in the same ‘manner as most cigarette paper, and the only way to determine whether or not it contains less magnesia than cigarette paper is by making a comparative chemical analysis. The court held that the appellant's trademark on the paper did not preclude ite classification as cigarette paper. The appellant could use it for the manufacture of cigarettes [18] + Where a printer tetifed thatthe form on which a decd was drafted hed not been printed before 1901, and that the file mark "190" on the form showed that it had been prepared for use after the year 1900, the court held that ‘the instrument could lave had no existence prior to the time the deed form was printed in 1901 or afterwards, ‘and that it could not have been executed on February 20, 1898,[19] © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works,‘88 AMIUR POF 3d 195, Page 47 88 Am. Jar. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) § 61. Proof of substitution of pages in document ‘The fotlowing facts and circumstances tend to prove that certain pages have been substinited in a document subsequent to the execution of the document. A comparison should be made by a document examiner of the shests of paper on which the document was written for differences #8 to: * chemical composition of the paper quality + date of manufacture Fact that certain sheets differ materially ftom other sheets as to: + chemical composition gusty weight * typing characteristics + aging characteristics watermarks + dates of manufacture “The following proof presents evidence demonstrating that pages have been substituted in a document after its execution, The testimony demonstrates that pages were typed on different typewriters, that the weight and type and texture ofthe paper used for the pages differed, and that there were differences in the watermarks on the pages. The testimony is that ofa professional examiner of questioned documents[1] {§ 62. Proof of substitution of pages in document—Testimony of document examiner [After introduction and identification of witsess] Ofave yo, in your profesional capacity ever perfommed any acts relevant othe proceedings before tis court? have. Please tefl us about these acts (On [date], T was given a written document and asked to make a professional examination of it. oro? T now show yon plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 [showing exhibit, already infroduced in evidence] and ask you if you © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 48 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) an identify it? > ‘This is a document that I was given on [date] to examine. ‘Who gave you this document? You did, sir. ‘Why was this document given to you? ‘To ascertain whether or not certain pages in it could have been substituted after the execution of the document. Were you able to discover any evidence of a possible substitution of such pages? Yes, orornPre Please describe this document for us. A ‘This document's a typewritten instrument that purports to be a will. It is also purportedly signed by the maker ofthe document and attested to by three witnessing signatures. Q A How long is this document? ‘Twenty-three typewritten pages. Q In your examination of the document, did you discover any differences in the typing on any of its pages? A Q A. Tid. ‘What differences did you discover? 1 found that the typed letters end characters on the first 15 pages of the document differed materially from the letters and charactore on the last eight pages. I also found that the first 15 pages were writen with a typewriter rib- ‘bon that produced a slightly weaker ink impression than the ribbon used to type the last eight pages. a “What conclusions did you reach as a result of these differences in the typing on the various pages of this docu- ment? A Teoncluded that the first 15 pages were typed on one typewriter and the last eight pages oa another, ‘Were you able to ascertain the make and type style of these two typeuriters? Yes, ‘What were they? pore ‘A [make and type style] machine was used to type the first 15 pages of this document. A [make and type style] ‘machine was used to type the last eight pages. Did you discover any other differences berween the pages or sheets of this document? laid, @ A. ‘What were they? I discovered that all pages of the document were not of the same weight. © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 ‘Page 49 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Q ‘What differences exactly were involved? A ‘The first 15 pages, when measured by a micrometer, proved to be [number] ten-thousandths of an inch thick. The last eight pages, however, were only [number] ten-thousands of an inch thiek. a "What does this difference in weight indicate? A. It indicates thatthe frst 15 pages belong to one manufacturing or production run of paper, and thatthe last eight pages belong to an entirely different production run. Did you detect any other differences between the first 15 shests of paper used in this document and the last ight pages? A Tid. ‘What were they? A | found that the First 15 pages were a kind of paper known as "wove" paper, and that the last eight pages were ‘not "wove" paper. Q ‘What is "wove" paper? A {eis paper that has 2 "woven" impression or texture on both sides of the shert. Q Does all typing paper have this woven appearance? ‘No, there is another type of typing paper, called "two-sided" paper, which docs not have a woven appearance. "Please deserihe “two-sided” paper in greater detail for ws. Two-sided” paper is paper the sides of which vary in appearance fiom each other. This difference in appoar- ance isa direct result of the paper’s manufacturing process. During the manufacturing process, the wet paper fibers sre carried on a web belt undemeath a roller. The woven surface of this belt impart a similar texture to the side of 2 sheet of paper that touches it, while the other side ofthe paper will have a smooth surface, owing tothe smooth sur- face ofthe roller with which the other side is in contact, This type of paper is called "regulor” paper Q How is "wove" paper manufactured? A By having the roller in the above process made of the sate webbed material as the belt beneath the roller. In that way, a woven impression will appear on both sides ofthe paper. Q {In the course of your examination, did you make any photographs of these differences in appearance between ‘the two types of paper used in this document? A Tdi. * 1 now show you defendant's Exhibits Nos. 1-46 (showing exhibits already introduced in evidence] and ask you if you ean identify them? A “These are enlarged photomicrographs that I made of the texture ofall 23 sheets of paper used in this document. ‘The photomicrographs show both the front and the back of each sheet, Q Would these differences in texture be apparent fo an untrained eye? A Definitely not. ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 50 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) ate cause of ‘Your examination, did you discover any other differences between the sheets of paper used in this document? Tad, ‘What other differences did you discover? ‘found thet the first 15 pages had a watermark that differed from the watermark on the last eight pages. How many watermarks were involved altogether? ‘Two watermarks were Involved. Please describe the differences between these two watermarks, {Witness describes the various differences between the two watermarks}. [now show you defendant's Exhibits Nos. 47-69 [showing exhibits, already introduced in evidence] and ask ‘you if you ean identify them? 4 "These are enlarged photomicrographs that I made of the watermark on each sheet of paper used in this docu- ment. Q A. ‘Did you trace the history of these two watermarks? Idid, ‘What did you discover as a result of your investigation? A I discovered that the last eight pages of the document were manufactured over 10 years after the first 15 pages ‘were manufactured "Asa result of your examination and analysis of the paper on which this document was written, have you formed any definite opinions as tothe time ofthe documents execntion? a Ihave. Q A, ‘What are your opinions as to the time of the document's execution? believe that the last elght pages of this document, in all probability, were nota part of the original instrument, but were substituted in it at a much later date Q A ‘When, in your considered opinion, was this substitution effected? About 10 to 10 anda helf'years after the document was originally executed. "Thank you, that willbe all. §63, Proof of substitution of pages in document—Ilustrative cases ‘The following cases illustrate evidence showing differences in the pages of documents tending to prove pages vere substiuted. «Pages one, two, and five of a five-page will were not admissible after a court revoked pages three and four as © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195, Page 5 85 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 19S (Originally published in 2006) improper substitutions. The trial conrt noted, "pages three and four are quite different than the other [three] ‘pageo of tho will* aod liste the dissimilarities as follows: the five pages of the will were not stapled together ‘when the will was found and presented for probate; the pages were on plain paper, not bond paper; the staple holes on these pages were different than the ones on the rest ofthe document; the page borders on these pases were different; the pages were in redelined format, while the rest of the will wasn't; the format, margins and Iypefece were different; and the pages were prepared on a typewriter while the others were prepared on a word ‘processor.LL] + Changes in a will which wore made by substinution of another page were not made in accordance with the statute Which permits revocation of an original will, and thus, the changes were invalid and the original valid. ‘vill was enfitled to probate, An attempt was made by someone fo change all of the dispositive clauses in the ‘will while leaving the execution and self-proving provisions intact. If in fact the testator did make the substitu- tion of one page of the will for the original frst page, he never intonded to revoke his will and de intestate be- cause clearly the execution pages remained intact and fully operative on any disposition clauses that were valid, ‘The changes that were made by the substitution of another page were not ones made in accordance with the satuie.2) «Will contestants had the barden of proving a substitution of pages, where a will had all of the appearances of authenticity and nothing raised a doubt as to the authenticity of the unsigned pages, other than the recitation in ‘the atestation clause that the witnesses had initialed the pages, and the absence of their initials [3] + tn an action to set aside probate ora will estimony ofa handwriting expert tha n his opinion the second and third pages of te will were typed at a different time than the fourth page of te will containing the festator's signature because the margins on the paper were different and the shade of ink was different, did not warrant fubmission to the jury of the iseve of substitution of pages, since the evidence was Valueless because the jury ‘was equally able to draw the same inference [4] + Whore it appeared that two pages of a deed were not typed on the same typewriter and thatthe watermarks on the two pages were different, uncontradicted testimony by the grantee that the instrument was stil in the same condition as when delivered to her sufficiently met the burden of explaining suspicions raised against the in- strament [5] + Ina proceeding for income tax fraud, an examination of the defendant's accounting records revealed that there ‘was a difference in typing between the first and second pages of the minute book and another page was written ‘on paper with the watermark "Damascus Bond’ whereas all of the other pages were writen on paper with the ‘watermark "Construction Bond.” The defendants agent expressed surprise in the apparent discrepancy and stated that he had never noticed the difference in typing and had never examined the paper for difference i wa: ‘termarks. He also expressed surprise at te discovery and stated that he was unable to explain i The court held that the defendant had committed fraud. [6] + Prosecutors alleged the defendants conspired to conceal assets of a bankrupt company transferring ttle t cet~ tain accounts and disguising thove transfers, The minutes fom board meetings at which some of these transac tons were discussed were written on paper ofthe same size and watermark as that on which the schedules were prepared: tht the minutes and ink with which they were signed appeared to be fresh and different from the bother minutes; that they bore no stains or fingerprints or "dog-ears"; that atthe time of trial they were marked, jog-cared,” and not fresh. Thore likewise is @ conflict concerning the time the minutes of the meeting at which the salary of the president was discussed were preparcd.{7) « Where it was alleged thatthe original minutes ofa corporation meeting were nat genuine, and that one pags of the minutes had been fraudulently inserted, it as held thatthe testimony of an experienced typewriter operator ‘hat one page ofthe official minute book had not been written by the same operator who wrote the succeeding ‘page, or on the same typewriter, as indicated by alleged differences in type, margining. punctuation, captaliza- ‘Hon, and watermarks on the paper, was admissible in evidence and its eredibilty was forthe jury [8] © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Ciaim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 52 £88 Am. Jur. Proof of Pacts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) §64. Proof of identification of paper by perforations ‘The following facts and circumstances tend to establish that paper used for “anonymous” eters allegedly mailed to the plaintiff actually came from a pad of paper in the plaintiff's possession + Possession by the plaintiff of a partial pad of paper bound at the top with perforated sheets of paper + Comparison of the plaintif’s unused paper with papers in the "anonymous" letters + Sclentific examination and testing of de paper by a forensies expert = Matching of perforated edges of paper in the Jettors with edges of the unused paper « Use of photographs and microphotographs to show matching ‘The following proof presents evidence demonstrating the origin or source of perforated paper in “anonymous” letters allegedly sent to the plaintiff by comparing the perforsted edges of the paper used for the letters with the ‘edges of unused paper In the plaintiff's possession. Under the assumed facts, this identification is necessary to enable the defendant insurer to defend against the plaintiff's claim for fire losses. The proof consists of the testimony of three persons: (I) a police officer; (2) an arsom investigator; and (3) a police forensies specialist [1] § 65, Proof of identification of paper by perforations—Testimony of police officer [After introduction and identification of wimess.] © on fae, id you do anything relevant to he proceedings before tis our? 1did. lease tll us what you did. ‘On that day, I went tothe plaintiffs office at address] and received three letters from hit. ‘Why did the plaintiff give you these thre letters? He said that he wanted to have the letters examined and identified by the police crime laboratory ‘Why did the plaintiff want to have these letters examined and identified? > er or De “He said that they were anonymous letters and contained threats against his person and his business. He showed ‘me the letters and asked me if there wasn't some way in which the police department could find out who had sent them [1] Q Did you handle the leters? A ‘Yoo, but Iwas wearing latex gloves at all times and I held the edges to preserve potential evidence. Did you read the letters? ‘No, I did not take them out oftheir envelopes. ‘What did you do with the letters? Afr ratory. ing the plaintiff a receipt for them, I put them in a large manila folder and took them to the police labo= © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig, US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 53 88 Amn. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Q ‘To whom did you give the leters? A gave them to [name of police forensics specialist] ” [now show you plaintif's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 [showing the threo letters in question, already introduced in evi- dence] and ask you if these are the three levers you took tothe police laborstory? A They ore 2] @ Thank you, that wil be al § 66. Proof of identification of paper by perforations—Testimony of arson investigator [After introduction and identification of witness.} ii ‘What is your profession or occupation? 1am an arson investigator fr the city fre department. ‘On {dete}, did you do anything relative to the proceedings before this court? 1 did Peas tell us what you did on that dat 1 investigated a fire at [plaintiff's business establishment]. tn the course of your investigation, did you obtain any information conesting the fire fom the plaints? 1 did ‘What information did you obtain? First, I asked him if he had any idea about the origin of the fire. ‘What was his reply? > or or oP RP OP He said he thought the fire bad probably been started by an enemy of his. Did he tell you his reasons for this conclusion? He did, ‘What were his reasons? yore He said he had recently received three anonymous letters containing threats against himself and his business, and that two ofthese letters had contained a threat to burn his business establishment. © Did show you thse et? 'No, he sald that he had given thea to the police for investigation, ‘What did you do then? ‘asked him for permission to take some samples of his office stationery and supplies, oper © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 54 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Why did you want samples of the plaintiffs office stationery and supplies? A ‘To make a routine comparison of these materials withthe anonymous leters that the plaintiff had allegedly re- ceived, Q ‘Did he let you have these samples? Yes. A Q ‘Then what did you do? A went to the plaintiffs office and took some samples of his office stationery. These materials included some sheets of writing and typing paper, and also some envelopes. Q A 0 Was there a computer and printer in his office? Yes. Did you obtain a printing specimen from this printer? > Tala. e Dia you take anything else from his office for investigation? Yes. What did you take? A pad of bound paper with sheets of paper perforated at dhe top. ‘Was ita full pad of paper? 1No, some sheets of paper had already been removed from the pad. “Why did you take the pad of paper? ‘To compare them with the paper used for the anonymous leuers thatthe plaintiff had purportedly rcocived. PpProProarOo? now show you defendants Exhibits Nos. 1,2, 3, and 4 [showing exhibits, already introduced in evidence], and ask you if you ean identify them? A ‘Ves, these are the sheets of stationery, envelopes, the printing sample, and the partial pad of paper that I took ‘fom the plaintifi’s office on [date]. @ ‘What did you do with these materials? A. T took them to the police laboratory and gave them to [name of police forensics specialist] for examination and analysis, a ‘Thank you, that will be al § 67. Proof of identifieation of paper by perforatlons—Testimony of police forensics specialist [After introduction and identification of witness.) Q (On [date of receiving the three anonymous leiters for examination}, did you do anything relevant to the proceed- ings before this court? il © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 55 188 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) A Idi. What did you do? 1Lexatnined three letters that were addressed to the plaintiff and wore purportedly anonymous. ‘Who gave you these three letters? ‘Officer fname of previous police witness). Why did you examine these letters? ‘To try to discover their origin and source. ‘Were you able to find out their origin and source? ‘Not at this time. I did, however, discover one significant fact concerning these letters. ‘What was this fact? ‘That the paper used for at least two of these levers had come from the same bound ped of paper. pPrporpererere How did you come to this conclusion? A 1 determined by a microscopic examination of the top edges of te sheets of paper that two of them were perfo- rated and appeared to have been tom off from a bound pad of paper. @ now show you defendant's Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10 and 11 [showing exhibits, already introduced in evi- dence], and ask you if you can identify them? A. 1 can. Exhibits 5,6, and 7 are photographs ofthe thee letters. Exhibits 8 and 9 are enlarged photomicrogranbs of the perforated edges ofthe two shecs of paper used forthe Iter Exhibits 10 and LI are enlarged photograph of thee sheets of paper, with back lines and arows poling tote places wheve their tor perforations iach After you had examined thoes letters, what did you do with them? A | forwarded them, along with a report of my examination, to [name of wimness' superior officer) * Now, on [date subsequent to witness’ examination of the three letters}, did you do anything further that was relevant fo the proceedings before this cour? A 1 did Pleas tellus whst you did. Op that date, [received and exarvined certain samples of office stationery and supplies. From whom did you receive these materials? From fname of second witness, the fire department arson investigator] ror Ore Exactly what did these materials consist of? ‘Some sheots of office stationery and envelopes, a printing specimen on a sheet of paper, and a pad of paper ‘rom which some sheets of paper hai alscady been torn. ©2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.‘88 AMIUR POF 34 195, Page 56 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Q Why were these materials sent to you? A For examination in connection withthe three anonymous leters that | had previously examined on {date}. Q Lnow show you defendant's Exhibits Nos, 1,2, 3, and 4 [showing exhibits, already introduced in evidence}, and ask you if you can identify them? A ‘Yes, these are the shoots of stationery, envelopes, the printing specimen, and the unused portion of the bound pad of paper that I received from [name of arson investigator] on {date}. 0. Did you examine these materials? A Id, Q ‘What conclusions did you reach as result of your examination? A ‘eoncluded thatthe stationery, the envelopes, andthe printing specimen did not match the materials or the fyp- ing of any of the three allegedly snonyrions letters Q ‘Why did you reach these conclusions? ‘The paper from which the office stationery samples were manufactured did not match the fiber content or the ‘other characteristics of the stationery on which the anonymous letters were written. The chemical composition of the ‘envelopes in which these letters were sent also did not match the composition of the sample envelopes. And the typ- ing specimen differed distinctly from the typing on the letters. Q ‘What conclusions did you reach about the unused portion of the bound pad of paper that was taken from the plaintiff's office? A ‘As to the pad of paper, I concluded that tom perforations of the sheets of paper used for the anonymous fetters matched tor perforated edges on the bound pad of paper taken fram the plaintiffs office. Q How did you arrive at this conclusion? A | examined the unused paper inthe pad under low-power magnification and compared them with the paper used fortwo ofthe three anonymous leters, By moving the letters around and comparing each of ther torn edges with the ‘om edges of the binding on the pad of paper, I was able to sce that the tom edge on the top of exch of the Jttore matched the torn edges ofthe binding on the pad of paper. I have prepared entarged phoiographs of both the pad of paper and its binding and also the two letters in order to compare each letter with the binding of the pad of paper from which it was tora. I have also prepared photomicrographs of the torn edges of all these stamps. These photomi- crographs show the letters on the Iet and the binding of the ped of paper onthe right [the witness points fo photomi crogrephs). Q Please explain the meaning of these photographs and photomicrograph for us, A ‘As you can see by means of these enlargements, the sheets of paper were not tom in an even manner; that i, sometimes the stubs between the perforstions of the sheets are longer on the right and sometimes they are longer on the left. Also, the ends of these stubs are not straight. ln short, you can see exactly how these sheets fit together and. match. This evidence, therefore, compels the conclusion that two of the levers sent to the plaintiff actually came from the same bound pad of paper that was taken from the plaintiffs office for examination. Q ‘Thank you, that will be all. {§ 68. Proof of identification of paper by perforations—Illustrative eases © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 57 88 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) ‘The following cases are illustrative of evidence demonstrating identification of paper by is perforations] +The fact that the alteration of a check which was alleged to have been forged took place after the check had ‘een paid, stamped and cancelled by perforation, and was therefore no longer a negotiable instrument, did not produce a fatal variance between the charge of forging or uttering a check and the proof, where the check also served as 2 voucher whereunder the alleged forger feigned to charge hereelf[2} + In an action to set aside the probate of a will, the expert's testimony that the second and third pages of the will ‘contained one more perforation than the last page of the will did not raise a jury issue on the question of substi tution of pages, where al of the testimony with respect to perforations was in complete confusion. [3] “The contestants who, in successfully contesting the probate of a three-page instrument, took the position that on the basis of the physical evidence of a staple or perforation marks in the last two pages of the carbon copy of the offered instrument, and in an extra page found elipped to the carbon copy, the extra page was the first page of the instrument as originally executed, were not “estopped” in subsequently contesting the probate of the page to question the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the page was a copy of the first page of the original ‘will executed. There was strong and convincing evidence, including the physical evidence that a staple or perfo~ ration marks in pages two and three of the carbon copy of the original will fitted perfectly with the page offered as page one of the original will, established that the page was a copy of the frst page of the originally executed will the origina first page of which had been lost or destroyed. [4] + A conviction for forging a payee's endorsement fo a check was held not sustained where a copy of the face of the check and of its reverse side upon which the forged endorsement appeared were shown, by perforations dis~ closing diferent date of payment, not to constitute one single check. [5] «In a probate contest, the evidence shoved that the disputed wil, dated September 20, 1924, had been executed ‘on a printed form that had been cut of€ at the top, so as to show neither the date on which the form had been printed nor the name of the printer. An employee of the printing firm testified that different blank will forms ‘were printed in January, February and October, 1924, and that because of certain printing characteristics pecu- fiar to each run of these forms, he deemed the disputed will to have been written on a form printed in October, 1924, more than. a month after the date on the disputed will. Furthermore, expert testimony conceming the cut ‘edge of the will showed, by enlarged photostats, that after the top of the form had been cut off the tail of a printed comma, as well as slight lobes of certain leters in two words, still remained. Also, a microscopic dem- onstration at the tial showed that although the tail of the comma and the lobes of the letters on the disputed form would not match either the comma or the Heifers on the forms printed in Fanuary and February, 1924, they did match the comma and letters on the form printed in October, 1924, As a result of this evidence, the con- tested will was held to be a forgery [6] “Tn. prosecution for uttering a forged check, it was held not eror to exclude testimony concerning the time ‘when che checte "were perforated’ ata certain bank, where no offer was made to prove anything by the answer, and it was more than nine weeks after the date marked on the check by the perforation before the tial begas, and no showing had been made that atthe date marked by the perforation there had been an established practice in that bank as tothe time of perforating checks that were paid nor thatthe witness knew what the practice was, if there had been one{7] § 69. Proof of opening of envelope The following facts and circumstances tend to establish that the envelope of a leter deposited in the mail had ‘been stesmed open prior to its receipt by the addressee. + Evidence ofthe steaming process — adhesive on the envelope flap rendered unusable —a series of wavy lines across the length of the flap, which lines are roughly perpendicular to the flap's folded top edge ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 58 ‘88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) + Alteration of cancellation matks on the back of the envelope as a result ofthe resealing of the flap ‘— cancellation marks crossing from the flap to the body of the envelope do not continue in their original pat- tem + Use of a different type of glue to reseal the flap — discovery ofthe different glue by microchemical examination “The following section presents evidence demonstrating that the envelape of a letter deposited in the mail was il legally opened prior {o is receipt by the addressee. The proof consists of the testimony of an expert witness, a pro- fessional examiner of questioned documents_[J] {§ 70. Proof of opening of envelope—Testimouy of examiner of questioned documents [After introduction and identification of witness.] Q A Fave you in your professional capacity ever parformed any ats relevant to the proceedings before this court? Thave. ‘What partioular act or acts have you performed? A ‘On [date], 1 examined the envelope of a letter involved in this litigation to determine whether it had been, ‘opened after its deposit in the mail, but before its receipt by the addressee. Q A Who asked you to make this examination? ‘You did, sir. Q now show you prosecution Exhibit No. | [showing exhibit, already introduced in evidence] and ask you if you can identify it? A. 11can. This isthe envelope that I examined at your request on [date]. Q As aresult of your examination did you discover any evidence that this envelope bad been tampered with? A Lai Q ‘What evidence did you discover? 4 First of all, 1 determined thar the envelope had been deposited inthe mail before it was opened by the presence of post office cancellation marks on the back fap of the envelope. { made an enlarged photograph of these marks ‘that clearly shows their postion onthe back ofthe envelope [displays photograph, already introduced in evidence as prosecution Exhibit No. 2]. @ A Please explain the meaning of this photograph for us. ‘The envelope has cancellation marks on both its front and back. The photograph, however, shows only the marks on the backside. As you can see [pointing to photograph, these marks run from the top left comer of the en- vvelope and are about one inch fong, iow do these marks show that the envelope was tampered with? A “The marks evidence tampering because they do not run together in a continuous or unbroken ine, This iegu- larity clearly appear in the photograph (he witness points to Exhibit No.2). Please explain the basis for this opinion in greater detail A © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 59 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) ‘After the leter was opened, it was then resealed. In the resealing process, however, the flap of the envelope was not placed so that dhe cancellation masks on it would run oF ft precisely with the cancellation marks on the body of te envelope, As the photograph shows clearly [points to Exhibit No. 2), the marks on the edge of the fap run slightly to the topside ofthe marks on the body ofthe envelope. Q Count this discrepancy in the joining ofthese marks have been caused by an erratic or jerky stamping process ‘when the marks were placed on the envelope at the post office? A Theoretically, yes. In aetval practice, however, when cancellation marks ere erratically placed om letters at the post office, more alteration and blaring occurs than appears on this envelope. Here, as you can plainly see, there is nly one deviation from normal in the appearance of the marks. That deviation isa clean, umblurred shifting ofthe position ofthe marks atthe place where the fap ofthe envelope meets the envslope's body. Q A Did you discover any other evidence that this letter had been tampered with? Tid. Q A ‘What other evidence did you discover? I discovered, by microscopic examination, material traces of « foreign substance along the entire length or edge of te flap ofthe envelope, > id you sujet ths eubtanco ta chemiclexainsion? did ‘What was the result of this examination? ‘The substance, on microchemical testing, proved to be an adhesive called "airplane dope." oP oP ‘What is your explanation for the presence of this “dope” or glue on the flap of the envelope? > ‘This substance was used to reseal the envelope after it had been opened. During your examination of this envelope, were you able to ascertain how it had been opened? Yes. How was it opened? > oP eo By steaming. 2 ‘What evidence did you discover to support this conclusion? A As is showm by the photograph of the back of the envelope {pointing to prosccution Exhibit No. 2], the flap of the envelope has a series of wavy lines across its entire length. These lines are approximately perpendicular to the top edge of the envelope. These wavy lines habitually appear om the flaps of envelopes aftr the flaps have been sub- jected to stam, Q A ‘What causes these lines to appear on the flap after it has been subjected to steam? ‘The hot steam moistens the glue on the inside of the flap, which seals the fp to the body of the envelope. As the glue dries, this pattera of wavy lines gradually appears and remains as evidence of the unsealing of the flap. Tho Tings are actually cracks or fissures in the glue on the flap. Q ‘Thank you, that will be all ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 60 88 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) § 71. Proof of opening of envelope—Iilustrative eases ‘The following cases are Iustrative of evidence demonstrating an envelope was opened or that an envelope was in issue and was examined: + A mystic will was not rendered invalid by being opened by an attomey in his office inthe presence of all heirs instead of being presented to probate judge in a sealed, unopened envelope J] +The evidence of the proponents was sufficient to rebut the presumption of intentional revocation of a will by reason of mutilation of the document, which was only partly obliterated, even though total obliteration could hhave been achieved as readily as a patil obliteretion, and which an expert document examiner concluded had soaked continuously in water for a petiod of at Teast three days and had completely dried out before the enve- Jope containing the will was ever opened [2] + Where a hospitalized decedent told a visiting minister that he was going to send him a will ina few days, and ‘several days thereater, an envelope, addressed to him was received by the minister in tue mail, containing a let ‘er and two sealed envelopes, which letter referred to the sealed envelopes as a "Will," and upon the decedents death, whea tho envelopes were opened in the presence of the president judge of the county courts in the prothonotary’s office, one envelope contained two sheets of paper, both signed by “Arch Keiper" and set forth reasons why the decedent's brothers and sisters were not benefited and why eerisin property was given toa de- ‘vsee, and where the second envelope on its face over the signature of "Arch Keiper" indicated that the dece- Udenta will was inside, and the second envelope contained handwriting on two sheets of paper each bearing the signature "Arch Kelper" atthe end, which made gifts of personalty, realty and residue, twas held, chat the too cavelopes and their contents, constituted the last will and testament of the decedent (3] + Where, uring the argument of a will contestents'attomey, reference was made to testimony given by a chem ist thet two envelopes bad been steamed open and then resealed and that an attorney for proponent made @ statement that the witness did not so testify and thatthe statement was @ falsehood, whereupon the contestants’ attorney requested time to find the testimony and have the reporter read it to the jury, and in response, the court remarked that it could be read, and the record did not reflect any further action of objection by the contestants, the isane of the court's alleged refusal of the request of the atfomey to have the court reporter read certain evi- dence was not properly before the reviewing court [4] «The fact that a-wil, left inthe proponent’ custody by the testator three weeks after its execution, in sealed nvelope, is found, when the sealed packet is opened, to have interlinations, erasures and over-writings which, ‘on physical examination, ae found some to be and some not to be, inthe handwriting of the decedent, raises no ‘resumption thatthe proponent made the alterations, or that he must bear the burden of explaining or otherwise accounting for the changes insofar as they relate tothe particular items in question; nor thar the proponent also, in effect, stands convicted of fraud os to the whole will since he has not met that burden; neither is proponent isqualified thereby from pacticipating under the wil [5] «Tn an action on a life policy in which the defense was cancellation for nonpayment of premium and the plain- {iff claimed that notice was sent by agents to one of the beneficiaries in a closed-faced envelope, and the de- fendant produced an open-faced envelope as a sample of the envelope used in mailing the notice, permitting the plaintiffs to produce a sample closed-faced envelope which the beneficiary received from the agents was held not error [6] «Where a father, after executing deeds to is children and delivering them in escrow to a bank official, secured thc envelope ftom another official and retarsed it tor open, and on his death it was discovered that no deed to a particular son was enclosed, it must be presumed against the children standing in the father’s shoes that there ‘was originally in the envelope an absolute deed to the son.{7] «The fact that an accused pretended to write to his father for a large sum of money, and caused an envelope ad- ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195, Page 61 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 19S (Originally published in 2006) dressed to the person he said was his father to be mailed, which envelope, on being afterwards retuned, un- ‘opened, by duc course of mail, was found on examination to contain nothing but a blank picce of paper, is ad- ‘missible in evidence, together wit the envelope and piece of paper. {8] ‘West's Key Number Digest ‘Wests Key Numbor Digest, Aeration of instruments 1, 15,24, 26 v0 30. West's Key Number Digest, Evidence ©-"372, 373, 378 10 381, 50 Wests Key Numer Digest Forgery ©1101, 36 42 Wests Key Number Digest, Wills 288, 289, 302 ‘Westlaw Databases 1 of Forensic Document Examinati ‘Trial (TLATRIAL ALLE. Library ‘What constitutes a public record or within statute 5p thereof an offense, 75 A.L.R.Ath 1067 Requirement that holographic will, or ts material provisions, be entitely in testator's cted by earance of some ‘or written matter not in testator's hands ST ALR Sth 528 ssibility of evidence as to ies or typing style (forensic linguistics) as basis of identification of wp or author 36 AL.RAth 598 ‘Business records: authentication and verification of bils ces ule 805(6) of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, LALRth 316 Construction and effect of sec. 1-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code dealing with documents which are ima fooie evidence of their own authenticity and genuineness, 72 ALR.3d 1243, sibility, as against hearsay objection, of report of tests or experiments carried out by inc party, 19 ALR.3d 1008 aH i 5 Amount of fees allowable to examiners of questioned documents or handwriting experts for serving and testify- Photographic representation or photostat of writing as primary or secondary evidence within best evidence rule, 16 AL.R2d 1356 Admiss lity of experimental evidence as to ability of chemical to eradicate ink, 76 ALR. 2d 379 Carbon copies of letters or other written instruments as evidence, 65 342 © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195, Page 62 88 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Opening. search and ceizure of mail. 61 ALR 24 1289 stions of evidence involved ection and examination of typewritten documents, 106 ALR. 721 Proof of Authenticity or Genuineness of Letter Other Than writing or Typewriting, 9 ALR. 984 Admissibility of Handwriting Expert's Testi ed Case, 183 ALR. Fed, 333 ity. U le 803(8)(C) of Federal Rules of Evidence, of "Factual Findings Resulting from inves: ‘tigation Made Pursuant to Authority Granted by Law," 180 ALR. Fed. 61 Re experiments, ot analyses 2s subject to dis by defendant under Rule 16 of Federal Rules ‘imi 10 ALR. Fed. 313 Legat Encyclopedias ‘Am, Jur. 26, Alteration of Instruments §§ 79, 80 to 81 ‘Am, Jur. 24, Bills and Notes §§ 704 to 709 Jur. 2d, Evidence § 1012 “Treatises and Practice Aids ‘Couch on Insurance, Third Edition §§ 253:3 to 253:269 1 Criminal Practice Manual §§ 10:7, 10:8 ‘Mueller and Kirkpatrick, Federal Bvidence §§ 561, 573 (24 ed.) Faigman, Kaye, Saks, & Sanders, Modem Scieatifie Evidence 24 ‘Toreia, Wharton's Criminal Law (15th ed.) ‘Trial Strategy ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 63 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Proof of ldentty of Fiber, Fabric, or Textile, 61 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d S01 Proof of Identification of Substance by Instrumental Analysis, 54 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 381 ‘The Dating of Handwriting Through Ink Analysis, 35 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 567 ‘The Effects of Alterations to Documents, 29 Am, Jur, Proof of Facts 34 549 jo Identificat 1d 27 Are Jur, acts 3d 48 Ancient Documents, 50 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 24 321 ‘Commercial Papor: Negligence Contributing to Alteration or Unauthorizod Signature Undor UCC § 3-406, 14 Jur, Proof of Facts 24 65 Bank's Failure to Use Ordinary Care in Detecting Forged or Altered 13 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 24 347 ‘Nondestructive Testing of MaterialX-Ray, Gamma Ray, and Neutron Radiography, 10 Am, Tur. Proof of Facts 2d 365 of Product to Meet ers Specifications or St 6 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 24 425 2 335 ‘Questioned Typewriting, 20 Am, Jur, Proof of Facts 265, ‘Charred Documents, 16 Am, Jur, Proof of Facts 665 rensie Doeument Exam jedical Malpractive Cases, 44 Amn, Jur. Trials 317 Investigating Particular Crimes.2 Am. Sur. Trials 171 Forms ‘Am, Jur, Legal Forms 2d, Alteration of lastumes §§ 18:1 (0 18:9 ‘Ano. Jur, Pleading and Practice Porms, Altcration of Instruments 66 1 to 28 ederal Procedural Forms, § 1:1286 Law Reviews and Other Periodicals Analysis of writing ink dyestuffs by TLC and FT-IR and its application to forensic science, 14 Analytical Sci ‘ences 2:269 (1998) Anonymous letters? DNA and fingerprints technologies combined to solve a case, 146(Suppl) Forensic Sei Int 8133 (2004) © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195, Page 64 £88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) Applications of non-destructive testing (NDT) in vehicle ttle forgery examinations, 39 J Forens Sci 751 (1994) A Practical Guide to Document Authentication: Legalization of Notarized aud Certified Documents, (Re- viewed), 79(9) Wis. Law. 28 2006 WL 2881217) (Camera identity from minute film-edge mark characteristics, 134 Forensic Sci. Intl 123 (2003) ‘Clayboum & Aaseli, Using Raman spectroscopy to solve crime: Inks, questioned documents and fraud, 40 Sci, & Just. 261 (2000) (abstract available at 2000 WL 33313248 (LR) Collection of fiber evidence using water-soluble cellophane tape, 39 J Forens Sei 6:1520 (1994) ‘Determination of sequence of writing impressions and ball pen inkstrokes using electrostatic deposition analy- sis, 33 J Forens Sci Society 2:69 (1993) ‘Development of latent fingerprints on paper using magnetic flakes, 40 J Forens Sci $:838 (1995) Drexler, A guide for submit stioned documents and handwriting evidence, 26 Am, J. Trisl Adv (2002) Dynamic of ageing of ballpoint pen inks: quantification of phenoxyethanol by GC-MS (gas chromatography- mass spectrometry), 44 Sci. & Just. 165 (2004 WL 3404204) “Extending ESDA‘s capability: The determination of the order of writing and impressions using the technique of clectrostatic detection, 59 Forens Sci Internat 2:163 (1993) Fingerprint detection on counterfeit US dollar banknotes: the importance of preliminary paper examination, -49(5) J Forensic Sei 1015 (2004) Forensi¢ Handwriting Examination: A Definitive Guide, (Reviewed), 476) Sei. & Just. 145 @0g7 WL 4284975) Graphical steight of hand: how can auditors spot altered exhibits that appear in annual reports, 193 J, Acct. 45 (2002) ‘Handwriting experts lead points to new Zodize suspect, L.A. Daily J., March 5, 2007, at 1 (2007 WL 902890) mwinkelried, Forensie Science: The Relativity of Reliability, 40 No. 4 Crim, Law Bulletin 3 (2004) Tuk analysis from typed script of electronic typewriters by high performance thin layer chromatography, 72 Forens Sct intemat 2:107 (1993) Ink expert pleads not guilty of perjury in Martha Stewart case, 150(118) Chi. Daily L. Bull. 1 2004 WL. 3481656) 1s it real? Proving (or disproving) the authenticity of immigration documents, 42(7) Tenn. BJ. 16 (2006 WL 2286325) Kontnik, Counterfelting: Obligation and nity, 8 Currents: Intl Trade LJ. 24 Magnanti, Forensic Handwriting Identification: Fundamental Concepts and Principles, 41 Sci. & Just. 127 © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMTUR POF 3d 195 Page 65 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) (2001) (abstract available at 200) WL. 831457 (LRD) ‘Mnookin, Seri handwaiting ident reliability, 87 Va. L, Rev. 1723 (2001) ‘Model for electrostatic imaging of forensic evidence via discharge through Mylar-paper path, 83 J Applied Physies 3:1450 (1998) ‘Multivariate chemometrics forthe forensic discrimination of blue ball-point pen inks based on their Vis spectra, 138 Forensic Sci. Int 75 (2003 WL 24176149) Optical Interference Costings of the Validation of Valuable Papers and Identification Use of the scanning elee- ‘ron microscope to examine fibsr impressions on typewriter comection tape, 40 J Forens Sei 2:291 (1995) Puri, Forgery by physical transfer, J, Crim. L. $9:1:144, March 1968 Purtell, David J, The Identification of Paper Cutting Knives and Paper Cutters, J. Crim. L., Criminology & Po- Tice Science, 1953, 44:262 ‘Quantitative measurement of misalignments in typed documents, 59 Forens Sci Internat 2:89 (1993) Schmitz, Should experienced document examiners write inconclusive reports?, J Crim L 59:44, Sept. 1968 Signature authentication by forensic document cxaminers, 46 J Forensic Sci 4:884 (2001) ‘Signature identification in the light of seience and experience, $9(5) Hastings LJ. 1101 @008 WL 3910491) ‘Speckin, Forensic solutions to altering medical or business records, 74 Mich. B.J. 1070 (1995) (abstract avail- able at 1995 WL 719311 (LRD) ‘Takahashi, Original Ds is of Credit is of High-Qualit is 12 Banking L.J. 613 (2004) ‘The viability and possible applications of high resolution mark replicator casting compound in document ex- amination, 4 Sei, & Just. 9 (2004 WL 3414483) Using the video spectral comparator in the comparison of carbon copies and carbon paper impressions, 40 J Forens Sci 2:296 (1995) ‘A logical framework to ballpoint ink dating interpretation, 48(3) Sci. & Just. 118 (2008 WL. 4823505) (Classification and individualisation of black balipoint pen inks using principal component analysis of UV-vis, absorption spostra, 174(1) Forensic Sei. Int] 16 (2008 WL 32254) Dating the writing age of black roller and gel inks, 162(1) Forensic Sci. Intl 140 (2006 WL 3506097) Examining the effects of paper type, pen type, writing pressure and angle of intersection on white and dark dominance in ESDA impressions of sequenced strokes—an application of the likelihood ratio, [electrostatic deposi- ‘oa apparatus], 181(1) Forensic Sei. Intl 32 (2008 WL 4767884) Reconstructing shredded documents through feature matching, 160(2) Forensic Sci, Intl 140 (2006 WL 72329238) © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 66 188 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) “The individuslization fallacy in forensic science evidence, 61(1) Vand. L. Rev. 199 (2008 WE 1132310) Additional References Baxter, The Use and Abuse of Documents (An Introduction to Questioned Document Examination), Medicine Science and the Law, vol 9, no 1, at 39 Ganuary 1969) ‘Carey, Paper and Paper Making—Some Notes on the History of the Art, Medicine Science and the Law, vol. 9, no 1, at 47 (January 1969) (Casey: Pulp and Paper, Chomistry and Chemical Technology. 2 vols, Interscience, New York, 1952 Coldwell and Smith: The Comparison and Identification of Adhesives on Questioned Documents. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1966, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 28-42 Documents, by JA. Dabrowski. Canadian Society of For Sei J vol Sno 4p 129 (December 1972) Ellen, David, The Scientific Examination of Documents, 2nd ed., CRC Press (1997) Image processing tools for the interactive forensic examination of questioned documents, IEE Conference Pub- lication n 408 199. IRE, Stevenage, Eng]. p 225- 228 (1995) Harrison, Wilson R., Suspect Documents: Their Scientific Examination, Frederic A. Praeger, 1958 Hilton, Ordway, Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, (2nd od.), Elsevier Science Publishers, (1982) ‘Kouris, The Dictionary of Paper (Ametican Pulp and Paper Association 1997) Labatre, Labarre's Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Paper and Paper Making (Swets & Zeitlinger 1969) Labarre, Labarre's Dictionary and Eneyclopedia of Paper and Papermaking. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1952 Mosher, B. HL, ed.: Specialty Papers. Remsen Press, Brooklyn, 1950 Norris, FH.: Paper and Papermaking. Oxford University Press, 1952 sbom, Questioned Documents (Second edition, reprinted 1973, Patterson Smith Publishing Company Mont- lair, ND) Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, Ordway Hilton Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. New York, NY 1984 “The Crime Laboratory: Case Studies of Scientific Criminal Investigation (24 ed.) “The Identification of Paper Without Watermasks: The Example of Pope's Dunciad, Studies in Bibliography, 37 cages) “The Role of Paper in Questioned Document Work, by J. Grant. Joumal of the Forensic Science Society vol 13 ‘no 2 p91 (April 1973) ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 67 ‘88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Government Uses Color Laser Printer Technology to Track Documents; Practice embeds hidden, traceable data in every page printed, PC World, November 22, 2004 IFN*] This article supersedes Identification of Paper, 18 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 71. TEN**] Patricia L. Proebsting is a municipel law attorney with Odgen, Murphy, Wallace in Seattle, Wash- ington, Ms, Prosbsting assists in the representation of several Washington cities and special municipal dis- ‘ticts and supports Washington's Municipal Research and Services Center. She has been a pro-tem judge. and publie defender, and was city attomey for Roslyn, Washington where the television series "Northern Exposure’ was filmed, and where she advised the city on permiting Issues for the production. Ms. Procbsting also works for the Northwest Justice Project providing civil legal assistance to low-income cli- ‘ents throughout Washington State. She has authored several American Jurisprudence articles including. Rabies: Proof of Death of Injury ftom Rabid Animal or Rabies Veevine, 85 Am. Ju Proof of Fucts 34 95, ‘and Proof of Injury or Damage Caused by Sonic Boom, 85 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 307. Ms, Procbsting authored this article in conjunction with Monique C-M. Leahy the principal of Wordsworth Publishing, providing law book authoring and research services to law and business publishers, and an attorney I censed in Washington, Missouri, and Kansas, Section 1 Footnotes: AENI] See wow. colum.edulcenters/opa and www.ipstgatech.edw. [ED] Soo www.ipst gatech.edwamp. ENG] See www.asqde org. IEN4] See Shellenbarger v. Longview Fibre Co., 125 Wash. App, 41, 103 P.3d 807 (Div. 1 2004), review denied, 154 Wash, 2d 1021, 120 Pd 73 2005). LENS] See Tess Wats. 4 P.2d 877 (1998); Families Against Reily/Morgan Sites Coun Bull als, 56 Ohio App, 34 90, 564 N.E24 1113 (1 1989), dismissed, Ota Se 18, Sig NE 21912 1089), [ENG] See Finch, Pruyn & Co,,Ine v. Tully, 69 A.D2d 3d Dept 1979); Boswell v. General Oils, Ine., 368 So. 24.27 (Ala, Civ. App, 1978), writ denied, 368 So, 2d 30 (Ala. 1979), Section 2 Footnotes: IENI] See http://www paperonline.org/history/105/105_frame ht [EN2] See btips/worw.paperonline.org/history/105/105_ftame.ham JENS] See bp: www paperonline orgihistory/18ih/18%h_Game-him. [E24] Sce http-/Avww paperonline.org/history/19_20th/19. 20kh_frame hem JENS] See hntp:/www paperonline org/history/2000/2000_frame html. Section 3 Footnotes: ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 24 195 Page 68 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) [EMI] See hrtp://palimpsest stanford edu/dan/atidt0631 tal END] See hitpy/worw trueart infoipaper_chemistry.htm. LENS] §§ 4 to 10. Section 6 Footnotes: EN] See hitp:/www-rethinkpaper.org/contenvhemp.cfin, {1EN2] See http: //ynww.rethinkpaper.org/contenthemp.cfin. [ENS] bttpytonww.rethinkpaper.org/contentinemp.cfm. Section 9 Footnotes: [EN Seo http:/rwwzan.org/ren_campaigns/old_growtb/alt_kenaf htm, Section 11 Footnotes: IENAI See http://encarta.msn.comfencyclopedia_761557788_2/Paper.himl. Section 12 Foomotes: IENI] See http.oyw.trucart info/paper_chemistry htm, Section 14 Footnates: IENI] See http:fen. ipedia.orp/wiki/Sizing. IEN2] See hmpr/fen.wikipedia org/wikd/Sizing. Section 15 Footuotes: IENL] See http:/www..watermarks infofindexi btm. END] See hnpr/fen.wikipedia.orgiwiki/Watermark. LENS] See http:fen.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Watermark. NE] For en interesting sion ofthe craton of watemats, sv American cs Raper Cov. Nex ‘koosa-Edw. er Co,, $3 F.2d 847, 29 USP.O. (BN. 71936). Section 16 Foomotes: [EMI] See hnp:vww2.warwick.se.uk/feclerts/ren/publicationsilima/paper!. Section 17 Footnotes: LENT] See §§ 18 to 21, 23. (© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 69 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) Seotion 22 Footnotes: IENI] See http:/en.wikipedia.org/wikifCarbonless_copy_paper. Section 23 Foomotes: FNL See http://www hk delarue.com/DLR_ContentiCDA/Pages/PortalsBath ford/pbsecurity/0,2092,00.html, Section 24 Footnotes: INI] See Mode and degree of proof required to establish genuineness of handviting offered as standard ‘oF exemplar for comparison with a disputed writing or signamure. 41 A.LR.2d 575; The Dating of Hand- Tok. acts 3d 567; Analysis of writing ink dyestuffs by TLC ‘and FT-IR and its application to forensic science, 14 Analytical Sciences 2:269 (1998). Section 25 Footnotes: ev. State, 347 Ark, 142, 60 S.W.3d 464, 471 (2001), See also State v. Mapp. 1994 WL 728172, ‘4 (Ohio Ct. App. Sth Dist. Stark County 1994) (not designated for publication) (an investigator conducted a ‘blood analysis of a paper towel found at the victim's apartment and testified that she did chemical tests on ‘the paper towels, aud that the blood was not consistent with dhe blood of cither of the victims or of the op- rpellant; the investigator also testified that she had analyzed blood samples from some five other persons, and conld not obtain a match with the blood stains on the paper towels). Section 27 Footnotes: [EMI] For a discussion of detecting counterfeit United States. currency see http://wwwsecretservice.govimoney_detect shtml. Section 39 Footnotes: [ENL] See http:/wvwr.mertiam-webster.convegi-bin/dictionary ?book=Dictionary&va=forensicdx=Oky=0. [EN2] See generally Wright and Gold, Fedoral Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6266. [ENG] See Wright and Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6266; Am. Jur. 2d, Alteration of Instruments §§ 79 to 81. (ENA) Am_ tur. 2d Alteration of Instruments § 79. LENS] See §§ 42, 44, 45. Section 40 Footnotes {ENI] Am. Jur. 24, Alteration of Instruments £79. [END] Am Jur. 24, Alteration of Instruments § 79. INS] Ryan v. Fleet Bank of New York, 286 A.D.24 925, 730 N.Y.S.24 628, 629 (4th Dept 2001 also Watson v. State, 264 Ga. App. 41. 589 S.E.2d 867, 868 (2003) (the evidence was sufficient to support ‘conviction for forgery and alteration in the first degree where the manager of a check cashing store testi= © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 ‘88 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Ori Page 70 inally published in 2006) fied that the defendant attempted to cash a check made out to her for $621.06 issued by a respiratory care ‘company and that the check was made with paper that was often used to make forged checks, which made the maneger suspicious, and, in addition, the manager of the respiratory care company testified thatthe de- fendant did not work for the company, that the address on the defendant's check was incorrect, that the check was not signed by the company’s comptroller, that the company logo was not on the check, and that the check was not drawn on the company's bank). ENA] Sun Oil Co, v, Allan, 195 Miss, 555, 16 So. 24 26 (1943) See also, Tims v, Tits, 66 Wash, 345, 119 P. 813 (1911) (parol evidence is admissible to explain interlineations and material alterations in a wait- ‘en contract when made prior to its execution); Fensler v. Sterling, 132 Ohio St. 498, 8 Ohio Op, £89, 9 ‘NLE.24 283 (197) (when, in an action on a promissory note, the defendant claims that the instrument has been altered subsequent to its execution and delivery, the burden of proving the alteration is on the defen- dan). Section 41 Footnotes [EN] Am. Jur. 24, Alteration of Instmmants § 80. IEN2I Nordale v. Fisher, 93 Ariz, 342, 380 P-2d 1003 (1963). See also Lampe v. Franklin American Trust Co. 339 Mo. 361, 96 S.W.2d 710, 107 ALR 465 (1936) (obvious alterations in a promissory note— crasures, paper thinner in some areas of the documents, ink blots, three different inks used, several folds causing holes in the paper—showed so plainly on its face and were of such suspicious character as to de- ‘mand explanation before the note was admissible, nothing 2s to the integrity of the note is presumed, and a question as to the time when, the person by whom, or interest for which, the alteration was made are mat- ters for the jury), [ENS] Sco Wioker v. Jones, 159 N.C. 102, 74 S.E. 801 (1912 [ENA] See Wicker v, Jones, 159 N.C. 102, 74.S.E. 801 (1912). Section 42 Footnotes: [EN] Fed, R Evid. 90102). IEN2] Fod. R, Evid, 90100). [ENS] Fed R Evid 9010613) and (4), TENA] See U.S. v. Craig, 573 E.2d 455 (7th Ci. 197). FINS] See US. v. Jardina, 747 F.2d 943. 951, 16 Fed. R. Evid. 254 (sth Cit. 1984), cling U. 173 (2d Cir. 1 [ENG] U.S, v, Jardina, 747 F.20 945, 951, 16 Fed. R. Evid, Serv. 1254 (Sth Cir. 1984). LENT] US. v. Kairys, 600 F. Supp. 1254, 1260 OND, Ill, 1984), order affd, 782 F.2d 1374, 19 Fed. R Ewid. Serv. 1184 (7th Clr, 1986), cer denied by Kairys v. United States, 476 CL 2058, ‘90 1. Pa 2d 703 (1986). U.S. v. Wolfson, 413 F.24 $04, 807, Fed, Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P 92436 Qd Cir. 1969). [END] Smyth v. New Orleans Canal & Banking Co.,93 F. 899 (C.C.A. Sth Cir. 1899), © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 71 88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) IENIO] Sce Zahedi v. LN, 222 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000), [ENL1] Maynaé v. Bailey, 85 W. Vo, 679, 102 S.E. 480, 9 ALR, 981 (1920). {ENIZ] State v. Rangel, 140 Ohio App, 34201 747 NE 24 291 (1st Diet, Hamilton County 2000), ‘Section 43 Footnotes: AENI] Fed. R. Bvid, 901(6)(8). IEN2] See Am, Jur. 24, Evidence § 1207. ENB] See Am, Jur. 2d, Evidence §8 1201 to 1204. {EN Johnson v, Pritchard, 302 $.C. 437, 443, 395 S.F.24 191 (Ct. App, 1990). LENS] Robinson v. Peterson, 200 Va, 186, 104 $.E.2d 788, 791 (1958). ill v. Allessio, 5 24, 24.913 (1998), Section 44 Footnotes: IENI] Fed. R. Evid. 1002. JEN2] Fed. R. Evid. 1002, ENS] Fed. R. Evid. 1001 LENA] Fed. R. Evid. 1001¢4) ENS] See Ws stand Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 7162. ENG] US. v, Vandersee, 279 F.2d 176, 181 Gd Cir. 1960) IENZ] Wilson v. State, 169 Ind. App. 291, 348 N.E.2d 90 (3d Dist. 1976). {ENS] Rachel v. Com,, 523 $.W.2d 395, 401 (Ky. 1975). IEN9] Bartholomew v. Walsh, 191 Mich, 252, 157 N.W. 575, $77 (1916). Section 45 Footnotes: TENE] Fed. R. Evid. 702. fEN2] Fed. R. Evid. 702. [ENG] See Wright and Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6265. [ENA] The case stating the basis for acceptance of scientific evidence is Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma. ccut 24 469, 2 12d 200, Prod. Liab, © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim fo Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34 195 Page 72 ‘88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 195 (Originally published in 2006) Rep. (CCH) P 13494, 37 Fed. R. Evid, Serv, 1, 23 Envtl_L. Rep. 20979 (1993) (history omitted). See also dmissibilty of inion Evident Court Cases, 177 ALR. Fed. 77; Post-Daubert Standards for Admissibility of Scientific and Other Expert vidence in State Cours, 90 AL.RSth 453, ‘Ag Tur. 24, Evidence § 100) (FNS] Inre Townsend, 309 B.R. 179 (Banks. W.D. Pa, 2004). [ENG] Janopoulos v, Harvey L. Walner & Associates, Lid., 866 F. Supp. 1086, 70 Fair Empl. Proc. Cas. (BNA) 683. 41 Fed, R. Evid, Serv. 285 (ND. ILL. 1994) (the court held that the expert testimony regarding ink-dsting using relative ink age comparison tests and the accelerated aging method was inadmissible at tual; the court criticized the Janopoulos court for its failure to thoroughly explain the methods used to ana- Ize the inks). [FIV7] US. v, Staszecpyecl, 880 F. Supp. 1027, 42 Fed. R. Bvid. Serv. 247 (S.D. N.Y. 1995). The court in 2002 WY 184, 60 F.3d 151 2002), disagreed with the Starzecpyzel reason- ing, Upon the appellant filing an objection to the proposed testimony of a handwriting expert on the day prior to tril, the district court allowed a Daubert-style hearing, and counsel for both parties were given the ‘opportunity 1 voir dre the proposed handwriting expert, Mr. Crivello, outside the precence of the jury. The ‘court noted the reasoning used in Starzecpyzel dd not persuade it tht it should sbaadon the previously ox pressed holding that a triat court is mandated to exercise its gatekeeping function in each ofthese specifi- tally expressed circumstances. The court also noted that the holding reached by the court in Starcecpyzel ‘was overruled insofar as that opinion held that forensic document examination cannot be regarded as tific knowledge within tae meaning of the rule regarding admissibility of expert westinony and thst, as such, a Daubert-style review was not necessary. Additionally, Starzecpyzel not followed on state: law ‘grounds by Spann v. State, 857 So, 24 £45, 852 (Fla, 2003). In Sparm, the testimony of a handwriting iden- tification expert ata capital murder tial would have beca admissible had the defendant proserved the issue for appeal because forensic handwriting identification was not a new or novel science. Therefore, a certain. ‘est did not apply to the expert's testimony. where handvriting identification was an established tool com- ‘monly used in court, and the experts had been unchallenged as valid and acceptable experts forthe majority of the twentieth century. The court noted that while some federal courts have affirmed the use of handwrit- ing identification experts under Daubert and some have not, Florida still considers the admissibility of new and novel scientific evidence under the other, Frye, test but because expert forensic handwriting identifica- tion is not new or novel, Frye hes no application in this ease) [ENS] See Wright and Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6266. Section 46 Footnotes: (ENI] Smith v. Runkle, 97 A, 296, 298 (NJ. Prerog. Ct. 1915), aff'd, 98 A. 1085 ONLI. Ct Er. & App. 1916) and aff, 98 ‘& App. 1916). Section 47 Footnotes: TENII Fed. B. Giv. P34. [END] See Danner and Varn, Pattern Discovery: Tort Actions § 0:3 3d ed.) TENS] Fed R.Civ. P34. {EN4) Fed. R. Civ. P. 34; Danner and Vam, Patter Discovery: Tort Actions § 9:5 (3d ed, Section 48 Footnotes: © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig, US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 34195, Page 73, 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) IENI] Seo Schioppa v. Pallota, 242 A.D.2d 698, 663 NLY.S2d SI (2 Dep't 1997) (an order compelling a physician against whom a medical malpractice action had been brought to produce medical records, in or der to allow the plaintif to have testing performed fo determine If the records had becn altsred, was not en jmprovident exercise of discretion tothe extent that testing, would not result in damage to or destruction of the records, but was improper to the extent that the damage or destniction would result, since the plaintiff hhad not set forth the tests to be performed, the effect each test would have on the item tested and a justfi- cation); Hales v. Oldroyd, 2000 UT App 75, 999 P.2d S88 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (in a medical malpractice case, an order compelling the plaintiff to produce documents she alleged had been altered by the defendants ‘was essentially one demanding a rooponse to discovery, not requiring document procinction aly, and thus, even though the plaintiff alleged Wet no altered documents existed, she was required to state so in the writ ten response). Section 49 Foomotes: [FINI] See also The Effects of Alterations to Documents, 29 Am. Jut. Proof of Facts 3d 549. Section 50 Footnote: IENI See also Forensic Identification of Handwriting, 27 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 489. Section 51 Footnotes: Ine, v. Ser AMut, Co. 94 22477 (D. Mi [END] Judd v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 663 So. 2d [ENG] Matter of Pstate of Burack, 201 A.D.2d S61, 607 N.Y 8.24 711 (2d Dep't 199%). [ENA] State ex el, Corbin v. Goodrich, 151 Ariz. 118, 726 P.2d 215, Blue Sky L, Rep. (CCH) P 72397 (Ci. App. Div. 2 1986) UENSTULS. v. Kairys, 782 F.2d 1374, 19 Fed. R. Bvid, Serv. 1184 (7th Cir. 1986). Section $2 Footnotes: FFNNI] The qualification of a forensic expert witness, generally is trested in Questioned Document Exami- fon—Identfication of Handwriting on Document, 15 Am, Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 595; Foundation for DNA ‘Tut, Proof of Facts 34.749; The Effects of Alterations to Documents, 29 ‘Am. Tur. Proof of Facts 3d 549. [EN2] See also Forensic Mdemtficati writing, 27 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 34 489. {EN3] Examples of recognized organizations in the fleld of document examination that the expert may be a member of include the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the Association of Forensic Document Examiners, the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, the Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners and the Southwest- ‘em Association of Forensie Document Examiners. Examples of recognized professional publications that ‘the expert may have been published in include the Journal of Forensic Document Examination and the Toural of Forensic Sciences. Section $4 Footnotes: IENII See § 45 also discussing expert testimony and the acceptance of expert scientific evidence. © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 74 ‘88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) ‘IEN2] Poole v. State, 270 Gs. App. 432, 606 S.E.2d 878 (2008), cet. denied, (Mar. 28, 2005). {(EN3] Com. v. Glyman, 17 Mass. L Rpt. 146, 2003, 156121 (Mass. Super, Ct, 2003), ENA] lnxe Estate of Prooutt, 783 A2d 803 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (ENS) Matter of Horace. 168 Mice. 2d OR, 87, 661 NLY.S.2d 809, 813 (Sup 1996). [ENG] US. v. Collins 559 F.2d 561, 565, 2 Fed. R. Evid, Serv, 171 (Sth Cir. 1977) (the court noted that ‘while the expert in Collins was sllowed to testify to the similarity of shoes and a briefcase in two photos, he ‘was qualified as a FBI expert in photographic comparison but the expert offered here claimed no expertise ‘making her especially proficient at comparing the two photos of shirts and the district court did not commit, ‘manifest error by excluding the proffered testimony of Gambina's fashion expert). Geen v, State, 23 Ma, App. 650, 329 4.24 731 (1974). TENS) Viersen v, Bucher, 342 $,W.24 203, 206 (Tex. Civ. App. Amariflo 1960). [ENO] Schultz v. State, 36 Ala. App. 414, 57 So, 2d 128 (1952). Section $5 Footnotes: IENJ See § 45 discussing the acceptance of scientific evidence. FIZ] Sedratlv, Allstate Lie Insurance Co., 185 ERD, a. 1998) Section 57 Footnotes: [EN] in re Bstate of Flores, 76 §.W.34 624 (Tex. App. Corpus Chris [FN21 In re Estate of Sweetland, 273 AD 2d 739, 710 N.Y.S.2d 668 (3d Dep',2000). {EN3] Skelton v, State, 795 $.W.24 162 (Tex. Crim, App. 1989), cert. dented by Texas v. Skelton, 498 1S, 878, 1ILS.Ci, 210, 112. Bd. 2d 170 (1990). [ENS] In re Powell's Will, 90 Mise. 26 635, 395 N.Y.S.2d 334, 335, 41 AF.T-R2d 78-1466 (Sur. Ct iam. [ENS] USS, v. Lukasik, 341 F.2d 325, 328 (7th Cir, 1965), cet, denied by Lukasik v. US, 381 US. 955. 83 S.Ct 1770, 141. Fé, 24702 (1965). ENG} Democrat-Herald Pub, Co, v. U.S.,29 Cust. Ct. 431, 1952 WL 7016 (Cust. Ct. Div. 1952). TENT) US. v. Brock, | C.M.R. 324, 1951 WL 1631 (ABR. 1951). [ENG] Kinky v. Stahlnocker, 145 Pa. Super. 397,21 A24 453 (1941), [ENO] Kelly v. King. 284 Ky, 490, 145 SW 2d 78 (1940), {ENIO] U.S. v. Raynor, 302 U.S. 540, 542, 58 §.. Ct. 353, 82. L. Bd. 413 (1938), © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 75 85 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) -v. Wooten, 171 La, 767, 772, 132 $0.26, 228 (1931). [FIV12] Denny v. Darraugh, 212 Ky. 655, 279 §.W. 1069 (1925) ({he rule placing the burden to explain al- terations on the party offering the document does not apply ifthe other party does not intially prove there ‘were alterations). TENS] Meffert v. Lawson, 289 Mo. 337,233 S.W, 31 (1921). Seetion 58 Footnotes: (EDL See $6 45, 51 regarding the qualification of an expert wimess, Section 60 Footnotes: [EMI US. v, Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 66 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1139 (Sth Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct 375, 163 L, Ed. 26 163 US. 2005). END] US. v,Scrashengst, 284 2 922.923 Tt Ci 2000, Sew so the Sexe Service's description of these = and—sother = features. «at agency's official website: http www, secretservice gov/money_detectshtml. [ENS] Jn re Marshall, 275 BR. 5 (C.D. Cal. 2002), vacated and remanded, 392 F.3d 1118, 44 Bankr. Ct Deo. (CRR) 14 (9th Cir, 2004), cert. granted, 126 8. Ct. 35, 162 L. Ed. 2d 933 (U.S. 2005). ENS) U.S. v. Graham, 60 F.3d 463, 460 (8th Cir. 1993). TENS] Bartsch v. Gordon N. Plumb, Jns., 138 IL App. 3d 188, 92 IUL Dec, 862, 485 N.E.2d 1105, 1110, (ist Dist. 1985). [ENG] Ramirez v. Brov id 199, 107 Cal, Rpt, 13: 3d 1345, 1355, (1979), judgment revid on other grounds, 418 US. 24, 94 S, Ct. 2655, 41 [. Bd 2d 551.1974). 7] Eastman Kodak Co. v, Fotomat Corp,, 317 F. Supp. 304, 165. . (BNA) 44 (N.D. Ga, 19 [ENS] People v. Carter, 192 Cal, App. 2d 648, 15 Cal. Rptr. 541 (4th Dist. 1961). IEN9] Iversen v. Iverson, 28 Il. App. 2d 45, 4 26 899, 994 (Ist Dist. [EN 10] Freedman & Slater, Ino. v. US.,31 Cust. Ct. 314, 1953 WL 7104 (Cust, Cx. 2 Div, 1953), IENLLI State v, Strickland, 229 N.C. 201, 206, 49 §,£.2d 469, 472 (1948). [ENI2] In re Levy, 260 A.D. 722, 23 N.Y.$.2d 414 (Ist Dep't 1940), affd, 288 N.Y. 499, 41 NE2d 788 942), 248 AD. 191 S, 449 (2d Dep't 1936), aff'd, 272 N.Y. 667, 5 NE2d 384,(1936), ‘American Lakes Paper Co. v, Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co., 83 F.2d 847, 29 U.5.P.0. (BNA) 351 (CCA. Tth Cir. 1936). © 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMJUR POF 3d 195 Page 76 38 Amn. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) [ENIS] In re Wood's Estate, 251 Mich, $60, 574, 299 N.W. 248, 257 (1930) {ENIG] Belcher v. Booth, 164 La. 514, 114 So. 116 (1927) {ENIZ) Macknight v. U.S., 263 F. 852, $59 (C.C.A. Ist Cir. 1920), cert. denied by Macknight v. US. 253 U.S. 493, 40'S. Ct 586, 64 1 Ed 1029 (1920 [EN18] Hygeia Antiseptic Toothpick Co. v. U.S.. T.D. 31529, 1 U.S, Cust. App. 497, 1911 WL 19935 (CL Cust App 191). IFN19] Strickland v, Strickland, 95 Ark, 623, 129 S.W. 801 (1910). Section 61 Foomotes: IENI] See § 51 regarding the qualification of an expert witness. Section 63 Footnotes: IENI Inre Estate of Weston, 833 A.24 490 (D.C. 2003), IEN2] Goode v, Estate of Hoover, 828 S.W.2d 558 (Tex, App. BI Paso 1992), writ denied, (Sept. 9, 1992). [ENS] Wroblewski v. Yeager, 361 S.W.24 108 (Ky. 1962) [ENA] Hoover v, Hoover, 258 Iowa 88, 26 N.W.24 98 (1947). ENS} Damron y. Damron. 301 Ky, 636, 192 S.W.2d 741 (1945) (stating where the heirs of the grantor ‘contested the deed and the grantee had the burden of proving ite validity under the rule that where the face of an instrument indicates an alteration, or where an alteration or 2 suspicious circumstance is proved by ‘extrinsic evidence, the party producing the instrument has the burden of proving that any change was made ‘under circumstances that render that change lawful). 16] Standard Oil Co. of Kan. v. Ct. CL. 201, 47 F. Supp, 120, 132, 42-2 Cas, (CC 9681, 30 AE TR (P-H) P 158 (1942), [ENT] Bravion v. U.S., 74 F.2d 389, 390 (C.C.A. 10th Cir. 1934). [ENS] Barsholompw v. Walsh, 191 Mich, 252, 157 N.W. 575 (1916). Section 64 Foomote: [EMI See § 51 regarding the qualification of an expert witness. Seetion 65 Footnotes: [ENL] Extrajudicil statements and writings are inadmissible under the hearsay rule only when offered as evidence of the truth of the matters to which they relate, Thus, ifa statement of another is offered to sow only that the statement was made, or that a perty acted and relied on i, the statement is not inadmissible on. the ground that itis hearsay. Also statomonts made in the presence of the party against whom they are of fered, and in a conversation in which that party took part, are not objectionable on the ground that they are hearsay. In this case, the testifying police officer and arson investigators statemen’s relaying what the plaintiff said come under this exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Fvid. 801; Am Jur 2d Evidence §§ © 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.88 AMIUR POF 34 195 Page 77 88 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) 658 to 707, 813. {EN2] Both the preceding testimony and that which follows tend to establish the legality of the acquisition ‘of the letters, the subsequent chain of control over them, and to lay a proper foundation for the introduction ‘of expert testimony by the police eriminalist concerning the letters. See § 50 discussing chain of custody, § ‘51 regarding the qualification of an expert witness. ‘Section 68 Footnotes: ENI] See § 45 also discussing expert testimony and the acceptance of expert scientific evidence. [END] Chistison v. State, 41 Ala, App. 192, 149 So. 2d 666 (1960), judgment affd, 273 Ala. $64, 142 So. 2 676 (1962), [ENS] Hoover v. Hoover, 238 lows $8, 26 N.W.2d 98 (1947) LENS] In re Roeder's Pstate, dd NIM. S78, 106 P.2d 847 (1040). ENS] Sharer v. People. 92 Colo, $47,22.P.2d 415 (1933), LENO] In re Oliver's Will, 126 Mise. 511, 214,214 N.Y.S, 154 (Sur. Ct. 1926). [ENT] Cooper v, State, 193 Ind. 144, 139 NE. 184 (1923). Section 69 Foomotes: LENI] See § 51 regarding the qualification of an expert witness, Section 71 Footnotes: {ENL] Succession of Mathews, 545 So. 24 650 (La. Ct. App, Sth Cir. 1989), writ denied, 548 So. 24 1256 (La, 1989), /FIN2] McKenzie v, Francis, 214 Va, 104, 197 S.E.24221 (1973) [ENS] In re Kel 20 Pa. D. & C.2d 521, 1960 WL 6171 (Omphans' Ct, 1960), {HN4] Coulson v. Clark, 319 $.W.2d 183 (Tex. Civ. App. Austin 1958), writ refused nice. [ENS] In re Molden's Estate, 6 Fidue. Rep. 330 (Pa. Orphans! Ct. 1956), aff'd, 387 Ps, 484, 128 A.24 568 0957) [ENG] McGonigle v. Prudential Ins. Co, of America, 100 Mont, 203, 46 P.2d 687 (1935), ENT] Hudson v. Hudson. 287 Il 286.122 N.E. 497.1919). [ENS] Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 347, 16 S.E. 945 (1892), aff'd, 148 U.S. 537, 13 S. Ct. 687,37 L.Ed. 549 893). ‘Westlaw. © 2009 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. (© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works,88 AMIUR POR 3d 195 Page 78 88 Am. Jur, Proof of Facts 3d 195 (Originally published in 2006) 88 AMIUR POF 3d 195 END OF DOCUMENT ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.