I have trained with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on questioned documents. Handwriting analysis is a major focus of questioned documents training.
Handwriting analysis is used to link a specimen of handwriting with a crime suspect by comparing the suspect's handwriting with, for example, the handwriting on a ransom note or other communication linked to a crime. The purpose is not to profile the writer but to determine if the same hand produced a document known to have been written by the suspect, called an exemplar or standard, and the document in question.
Handwriting analysts try to maintain a strict protocol with criminal suspects. The analysts do not show the suspect the questioned document. They do not tell the suspect how to spell certain words or how to use punctuation. The suspect is to use writing materials similar to those of the questioned document. The dictated text should in some respects match the content of the questioned document so that the spelling and handwriting of certain words and phrases can be compared. The text the suspect is to write out should be dictated at least three times. In addition, a witness should observe the procedure.
In either type of case--whether authenticating documents or investigating criminal suspects--handwriting analysts begin from the premise that while most people learn to write using a certain system, such as the Palmer or Zaner-Blosser system, they develop idiosyncrasies in the way they form letters and words. These idiosyncrasies become fixed and remain constant over time, even when the person is attempting to disguise her or his writing.
For comparison, analysts generally focus on four categories of factors that define a person's handwriting. The first is form: the shape of letters, their proportion, slant, lines, angles, retracing, connection, and curves. One writer, for example, might begin a "t" at the top and make a single straight line down, while another may begin at the bottom and form a loop. Similarly, a writer may form the vertical line of a "d" with an upstroke, then retrace downward to finish the letter, while another writer may form a loop rather than retracing. One person's capital "A" might be round and fat, another's thin and angular. One person's cross on a "t" may slope up, another's may be horizontal, any yet another's may slope downward. The second category is line quality, which results from the pressure exerted and the type of writing instrument and includes the continuity and flow of the writing. Thus, pauses can be discerned, and these pauses tend to take place in predictable patterns. The third category is arrangement, which includes spacing, alignment, formatting, and punctuation. Document examiners also look at a final category, content, which includes spelling, phrasing, grammar, sentence formation, and the like.
The central question is whether handwriting analysis is a valid forensic technique. It has been shown that even trained document examiners can be fooled. Nonetheless, for over three decades handwriting analysis has been regarded as valid and reliable evidence in court. The existence of such groups such as the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners suggest that a community of scientists generally accepted the premises and techniques of handwriting analysis. Further, the United States Secret Service maintain that their computer databases prove that among a large sample of writers, no two share the same combination of handwriting characteristics.
Since 1993, though, the admissibility of handwriting analysis has come under intense scrutiny. That year, the United States Supreme Court, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, created the stricter Daubert standard, which gives federal judges more discretion in admitting or excluding scientific testimony and evidence. Specifically, Daubert requires judges to determine whether a theory of technique has been tested, whether it has been submitted to peer review, whether standards exist for applying the technique, and what the error rate is. Under the stricter Daubert standard, virtually any forensic technique, including handwriting analysis and even such venerable tools as handwriting comparison, could be questioned and excluded.
One federal ruling dealt a severe blow to the admissibility of handwriting analysis. In United States v. Saelee, (162 F. Supp. 2d 1097, D. Alaska 2001) a federal court ruled that handwriting analysis had never been adequately tested. The court stated that serious questions exist about the reliability of methods currently in use. The court went on to say that the technique of comparing known writings with other writings appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards.
One drawback that I see in handwriting analysts is that most of the supposed handwriting analysts do not understand how to handle the professional forgers. The professional forger understands the training, methods, and background of handwriting analysts and acts on that knowledge to defeat handwriting analysts who are trained to deal with the general public. For example, consider cocaine distribution by teenagers will usually lack the sophistication of a professional drug cartel. The teenage drug dealers do not know the methods of law enforcement. The drug cartels do understand the methods of law enforcement. The professional drug dealers understanding of law enforcement makes them difficult to combat.
Like all experts or supposed experts, handwriting analysis often comes down to a battle of expert witnesses. The handwriting expert for one side will often lessen or completely cancel the handwriting expert for the other side.
GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law
No comments:
Post a Comment