12th Annual IADE Webinar-Mock Trials

The transcript documents a collaborative workshop and educational presentation featuring two mock trials designed to simulate direct and cross-examination of forensic document and handwriting examiners. It highlights the legal, scientific, and procedural challenges associated with document authentication in court.

1. First Mock Trial: Natalie Bureau (The Case of Paul Lovett’s Will)

• The Witness & Qualifications: Natalie Bureau is a document examiner who completed a five-year apprenticeship (2012–2016) and holds an International Association of Document Examiners (IADE) certification.
• The Case: Natalie was retained by Aaron Von Utengem to examine a scanned holographic (handwritten) will of the testator, Paul Lovett, to determine if the signature and body of the writing were authentic.
• Methodology & Analysis: Utilizing American Standards Board (ASB) and ANSI guidelines, she conducted side-by-side comparisons of the questioned document (Q1) against known exemplars. She analyzed line quality, spacing, slant, connecting letters, pen pressure, and stroke styles.
• Findings: Natalie concluded with a reasonable degree of professional certainty that both the body and signature of the holographic will were genuine.
• Cross-Examination: Attorney Brian Gormley challenged Natalie on several fronts, including her formal training, the subjective nature of handwriting analysis, error rates in the field, the limitation of examining scans instead of original documents, and visible inconsistencies in specific letters like the “P” in Paul and “L” in Lovett.
• Peer Critique: Workshop participants noted Natalie did a commendable job but advised that her report and testimony could be strengthened by leaning more heavily into scientific terminology (e.g., precise slant, pen pressure) and having actual research studies and textbooks readily on hand to defend her error rates and methodology.

2. Second Mock Trial: August Meyer (The Case of Alfonso Johnson Sr.’s Estate)

• The Witness & Qualifications: August Meyer is a forensic document examiner who completed training under Reed Hayes and pursues continuing education with SAFE and IADE.
• The Case: This involved a contested estate where Alfonso Johnson Sr., who was terminally ill, allegedly signed a will and several property deeds. Alfonso Johnson Jr. (who was cut out of the estate) contested the signatures, prompting the defendant, Antonio Johnson, to retain August.
• Methodology: August analyzed nine signatures across eight photocopied documents, comparing them to ten known exemplars spanning several years. He evaluated line quality, pressure patterns, letter connections, spacing, and writing rhythm.
• Findings:
  • August concluded that signatures Q1 through Q7 were genuine.
  • He determined signature Q8 was not genuine. Interestingly, August noted that Q8 was written by the same author as “U1″—a document initially submitted as a “known” exemplar, which August successfully flagged as anomalous and segregated. (It was later revealed that Antonio signed Q8 because his father grew too tired to write).
• Cross-Examination: Gormley challenged August on his correspondence-style training, the subjective definitions of “writing rhythm,” and the pictorial differences in letters like “J” and “A”. August defended the variations in the genuine signatures as expected natural variations caused by Alfonso Sr.’s failing health and physical fatigue.
• Actual Outcome: August shared that in the real-life case, his retaining client prevailed. The judge accepted his testimony over an opposing expert who had claimed the signatures were created using a tracing method.

3. Key Legal & Scientific Themes Discussed

• The Subjectivity vs. Objectivity Debate: Peers discussed how to combat the common courtroom accusation that handwriting analysis is purely subjective. They highlighted the three core principles of handwriting identification: uniqueness/individualism, natural variation, and skill level.
• Scientific Standards: The group noted that these three principles have been accepted by courts for over a century and are now validated by automated software like Cedar Fox (used by the postal service), which helps establish handwriting analysis as an objective science.
• Attacking Expert Credentials: Participants discussed “Daubert Challenges” and how opposing lawyers frequently target an expert’s lack of a formal academic degree in document examination (since no such degree exists).
• Procedural Strategies: The attendees debated the logistics of expert witness preparation, the benefits of providing attorneys with pre-written direct questions, the “voir dire” process of qualifying experts, and rules regarding the sequestering of experts during trials.