1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART

Defendants.

DEFENDANT JOHN GALLEGOS’ PROFFER REGARDING METHODOLOGY USED AND 

APPLIED AS WELL AS FACTS AND DATA REQUIRED AND CONSIDERED BY 

ROBERT KULLMAN

John Gallegos, by and through counsel William L. Taylor and Darlene A. Bagley 

of the firm Ridley, McGreevy & Winocur, P.C., hereby submits his Proffer Regarding 

Methodology Used and Applied as well as Facts and Data Required and Considered by 

Robert Kullman.

Opinions 1-3

Methodology Used by Robert Kullman 

In reaching Opinions 1-3 as set forth in the Joint 702 pleading, Mr. Kullman 

employed the methodology set forth in ASTM Standard E-2290-07a, the Standard 

Guide for the Examination of Handwritten Items, as well as the ASTM Standard Guide 

for Expressing Conclusions. These methodologies are the recommended, accepted

standards in the field.

The Standard Guide for the Examination of Handwritten Items outlines the 

procedure to be employed when conducting examinations and comparisons involving 

handwritten items. In using this Standard, an examiner must keep in mind section 

(3.3.15.1), the discussion of which specifies that no two writings of the same material by 

the same writer are identical in every detail. The Standard instructs the examiner to 

separate the questioned writing into groups if there is more than one type of writing. 

(See Section (7.7.1).) Further, the Standard instructs that, if there are inconsistencies 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 148 filed 09/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 9
2

within the groups created, the examiner is to divide the groups into subgroups. (See

Section (7.7.2).) The examiner should then determine the range of variation for each 

group and determine the presence or absence of individualizing characteristics. (See 

Sections (7.10.3) and (7.10.4).)) With original documents, microscopic evaluation may 

be conducted. A side-by-side comparison is then conducted to determine whether there 

are differences, absent characters, similarities, as well as to analyze other potentially 

significant features present. (See Section (7.12) and related Note 6.) The examiner 

then forms a conclusion according to the Standard Guide for Expressing Conclusions

The Standard Guide for Expressing Conclusions employs a range of nine 

conclusions to be offered in handwriting comparison. These conclusions are as follows:

1- The questioned writing and the known writing were written by the same person.

2- It is highly probable that the questioned writing and the known writing were 

written by the same person.

3- It is probable that the questioned writing and the known writing were written by 

the same person.

4- There are indications that the questioned writing and the known writing were 

written by the same person. (*This is a very weak opinion, and far from 

conclusive. The evidence falls far short of that necessary to support a definite 

conclusion.)

5- No conclusion can be drawn, meaning there are as many similarities as there are 

differences within the writing.

6- There are indications that the questioned writing and the known writing were not 

written by the same person.

7- It is probable that the questioned writing and the known writing were not written 

by the same person.

8- It is highly probable that the questioned writing and the known writing were not 

written by the same person.

9- The questioned document and the known document were not written by the 

same person. (*This is the most difficult opinion to render.)

Limitations affect the ability to render opinions using the Standard outlined 

above. Limitations include, but are not limited to, having photocopied documents 

(meaning, not the original) or having a limited amount of questioned or known 

documents. (See Section (5.2).)

Manner in which Said Methodology was Applied

As evidenced by the notes provided to the government, Mr. Kullman applied the 

methodology as outlined in the ASTM Standard Guide for Examination of Handwritten 

Items. He identified all of the writings at issue (the signatures in notebooks one through 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 148 filed 09/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 9
3

four) and made the initial determination of whether the writings were similar or if the 

writings needed to be separated into groups of single types of writing. Mr. Kullman 

made the initial determination that ten writings appeared identical, meaning they had a 

common parent or one of the ten was the parent.

Mr. Kullman prepared a cut-and-paste chart with all of the writings. In comparing 

the writings, he determined that all writings did not have internal consistency. Thus, he 

then separated the writings into three groups using the identical signatures and the 

signature on the driver’s license as known samples. The groups were created as 

follows: one group having what appeared to be some similarities but also differences,

which included the identical signatures; another group that contained abbreviated 

signatures appearing to have internal consistency with the first name, but, again, for 

which limitations existed; and one group that did not have internal consistency with each 

other or either of the other groups and for which it appeared as if there may have been 

multiple writers.

Mr. Kullman then formed his opinion in accordance with the Standard Guide for 

Expressing Conclusions. He opined that the ten identical signatures came from a 

common source. He then opined that the first two groups (A and B) fit conclusion 4 of 

the Standard Guide for Expressing Opinions: there are indications that the questioned 

writing and the known writing were written by the same person. (Again, this is a very 

weak opinion, and far from conclusive. The evidence falls far short of that necessary to 

support a definite conclusion.) Finally, Mr. Kullman opined that the third group (C) fit 

conclusion 6: There are indications that the questioned writing and the known writing 

were not written by the same person. More definite opinions could not be made 

because of the limitations of the documents.

Facts and Data to be Considered by Said Methodology

As outlined above, the facts and data to be considered are known writings in 

comparison to questioned writings. Original documents (or documents without the 

limitations listed in Section 5) are preferred for use in said evaluation. If original 

documents are not available, the best available reproduction should be used. Said 

reproduction must be reproduced with sufficient clarity for comparison purposes.

Facts and Data Actually Considered 

Known signatures considered by Mr. Kullman were the identical signatures (likely 

created by using a signature stamp) as well as the signature on Mr. Gallegos’ driver’s 

license. The other signatures were treated as questioned signatures.

Per the government, original documents are not available. Thus, the best 

available reproductions made available to the defense were provided to Mr. Kullman. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 148 filed 09/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 9
4

As these reproductions are not original documents, a microscopic examination was not 

conducted as he could not have looked into the line to determine direction of stroke, 

pressure, rapidity of stroke, etc. Rather, Mr. Kullman enlarged each photocopied 

signature for comparison and conducted his examination using that information.

Because originals were not available (thus presenting inherent limitations), Mr. 

Kullman’s opinion is likewise limited.

Opinion 4

Methodology Used by Robert Kullman

The ASTM Standard Guide for Examination of Handwritten Items (E-2290-07a) 

posits that documents may have inherent limitations that may interfere with the 

procedures in the Guide. As stated in E-2290-07a (5.2), “Limitations can be due to 

submission of non-original documents, limited quantity or comparability, or condition of 

the items submitted for examination.” In section (7.5.1) the Guide goes on to state, “If 

the original is not submitted, evaluate the quality of the best available reproduction to 

determine whether the significant details of the writing have been reproduced with 

sufficient clarity for comparison purposes and proceed to the extent possible.”

Section (7.12.4)(Note 6) outlines features to be considered as elements of 

writing, some of which may be difficult if not impossible to discern without the original 

document:

Abbreviation; alignment; arrangement; formatting; positioning; 

capitalization; connectedness and disconnectedness; cross strokes 

and dots, diacritics and punctuation; direction of strokes; disguise; 

embellishments; formation; freedom of execution; handedness; 

legibility; line quality; method of production; pen hold and pen 

position; overall pressure and patterns of pressure emphasis; 

proportion; simplification; size; skill; slant or slope; spacing; speed; 

initial, connecting, and terminal strokes; system; tremor; type of 

writing; and range of variation; ... lifts stops and hesitations of the 

writing instrument; patching and retouching; slow, drawn quality of 

the line; unnatural tremor; and guide lines of various forms.

Manner in which Said Methodology was Applied

As originals were not provided, Mr. Kullman was unable to examine the 

documents for many of the above elements of writing. However, in accordance with the 

ASTM Standard Guide, Mr. Kullman evaluated the best available reproduction for what 

can be examined using photocopies. Also in accord with the ASTM Standard Guide, 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 148 filed 09/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 9
5

with the limitations inherent in photocopies, Mr. Kullman could not opine with a great 

deal of certainty. 

Facts and Data to be Considered by Said Methodology

The facts and data to be considered using this methodology is outlined in Section 

(7.12.4)(Note 6) of the Standard Guide.

Facts and Data Actually Considered

Mr. Kullman examined the best available reproductions made available to the 

defense. Again, much of the data to be considered in examining writing elements could 

not be considered due to the absence of original documents. Specifically, he could not 

examine the writings microscopically for direction of stroke; disguise; embellishment; 

formation; freedom of execution; handedness; method of production; pen hold and pen 

position; overall pressure and patterns of pressure emphasis; speed; initial, connecting, 

and terminal strokes; lift stops and hesitations of the writing instrument; patching and 

retouching; slow, drawn quality of the line; etc.

Mr. Kullman was able to examine the writings (the photocopies in this case) for 

general, overall letter formations, proportions within letters, proportions between letters, 

slant, and spatial relationships.

Because of the methodology employed, the forensic examination was 

hampered/inherently limited by the unavailability of originals, as described generally in 

ASTM standards 7.12.4, 5.2, and 5.4. Because of these limitations, there could be no 

high degree of certainty in Mr. Kullman’s opinion because of the possibilities that the 

writings resulted from “cut and paste” or tracing techniques or were computer 

generated. Moreover, the copies produced, although the best available reproductions, 

are medium-grade copies. Finally, there were few known samples, which also 

interfered with the level of certainty in Mr. Kullman’s opinion.

Opinion 5

Methodology Used 

Mr. Kullman has formed his opinion – that laypersons experience significantly 

higher error rates in handwriting identification than do professional forensic document 

analysts – over many years, in reliance upon his professional training in the field of 

forensic document analysis; his decades of experience in the field; his consultation with 

professional colleagues in the field regarding observations pertaining to errors made by 

trainees and laypeople; and his experience in training individuals in the field of forensic 

document analysis.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 148 filed 09/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 9
6

In addition to his decades of anecdotal experience, Mr. Kullman’s opinion is 

supported by empirical studies conducted by academics and identified and provided to 

the government with Rule 702 disclosures. Said studies compared and contrasted the 

use of the methodology outlined above for Opinions 1-3 by three separate groups: 

professional forensic document examiners; trainees in the field, and laypeople. The 

studies then used standard statistical analysis to determine whether or not certain 

hypotheses (namely, whether there is a difference between assessments provided by

professional forensic document examiners and laypersons about genuineness and 

nongenuineness of signatures) should be accepted or rejected.

Manner in which Said Methodology was Applied

Mr. Kullman has formed his opinion – that laypersons experience significantly 

higher error rates in handwriting identification than do professional forensic document 

analysts – over many years, in reliance upon his professional training in the field of 

forensic document analysis; his decades of experience in the field; his consultation with 

professional colleagues in the field regarding observations pertaining to errors made by 

trainees and laypeople; and his experience in training individuals in the field of forensic 

document analysis.

Of particular significance to the formation of Mr. Kullman’s opinion on this subject 

over decades has been the controlled testing of candidates to become forensic 

document analysts whom Mr. Kullman has trained. As part of their training, such 

candidates are tested on their ability to identify the signatures of known samples, under 

controlled conditions. Candidates are tested for their ability to identify actual signatures 

and simulated signatures. Mr. Kullman has observed over his many years of training 

and testing such candidates that there is a great disparity in accuracy rates yielded by 

testing of fully trained and experienced forensic document analysts compared to those 

of candidate trainees.

With regard to the studies relied upon by Mr. Kullman in support of his opinion, 

said studies were published in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences’

publication. The studies applied the methodology in a controlled environment. The 

three groups (professional forensic document examiners; trainees; and laypeople) were 

given the same assignment: All were provided with known signatures and unknown 

signatures and were then asked to examine the unknown signatures. Then, they were 

asked to form opinions in terms of the genuineness of the signatures using the ASTM 

Standard Guide for Expressing Opinions.

Using the standard statistical analysis, the hypothesis that there is no difference 

between the assessments provided by professional forensic document examiners and 

laypersons about genuineness and nongenuiness of signatures was rejected. Further, 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 148 filed 09/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 9
7

the study demonstrated that the professional forensic document examiners also

performed markedly better than the trainees in forensic document analysis.

Facts and Data to be Considered by Said Methodology

Mr. Kullman has formed his opinion – that laypersons experience significantly 

higher error rates in handwriting identification than do professional forensic document 

analysts – over many years, in reliance upon his professional training in the field of 

forensic document analysis; his decades of experience in the field; his consultation with 

professional colleagues in the field regarding observations pertaining to errors made by 

trainees and laypeople; and his experience in training individuals in the field of forensic 

document analysis.

Also considered by this methodology were the studies conducted using the three 

groups of examiners: professional forensic document examiners, trainees, and 

laypersons.

Facts and Data Actually Considered

Mr. Kullman has formed his opinion – that laypersons experience significantly 

higher error rates in handwriting identification than do professional forensic document 

analysts – over many years, in reliance upon his professional training in the field of 

forensic document analysis; his decades of experience in the field; his consultation with 

professional colleagues in the field regarding observations pertaining to errors made by 

trainees and laypeople; and his experience in training individuals in the field of forensic 

document analysis.

Finally, in forming the opinion to which he is prepared to testify in this case, Mr. 

Kullman re-reviewed the studies referred to above, which corroborate his opinion, 

formed over decades, with empirical data generated by experimentation under 

controlled conditions, subjected to statistical analysis, with findings subjected to peer 

review prior to publication in what may be the most respected journal in his field – the 

official organ of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 148 filed 09/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 9
8

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of September, 2012.

/s/ William L. Taylor 

William L. Taylor, #21098

/s/ Darlene A. Bagley 

Darlene A. Bagley, #35728

Ridley, McGreevy & Winocur P.C.

303 16th Street, Suite 200

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 629-9700

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 148 filed 09/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 9
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 17th day of September, 2012, I served a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT JOHN GALLEGOS’ PROFFER 

REGARDING METHODOLOGY USED AND APPLIED AS WELL AS FACTS AND 

DATA REQUIRED AND CONSIDERED BY ROBERT KULLMAN via CM/ECF filing 

addressed to all counsel/parties subscribed for service of CM/ECF filings in this matter.

/s/ Suzy M. Kamps

Suzy M. Kamps

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 148 filed 09/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 9