New-York tribune., 1901-02-15
HANDWRITING EXPERTS.

The ruling Of Justice Fursman on handwriting
testimony in the Kennedy case is Of the great
est Importance The handwriting expert abuse
has been a growing scandal In our Judlclal
procedure. and IL is high time that court OF
imnortance took action which will lead 10 early
definition by the Court OF Appeals of the limits
Of exnert testimony concerning disputed hand
writing. II II is lawful for handwriting teach
ers 10 swear away life and liberty on the
strength OF esoteric doctrines which, applied
10 a series OF disputed writings lead 10 an ex-
pert opinion Of common authorship between
one Of them and some acknowledge writing
when there is no likeness To the ordinary OBJ
seryation. II ought 10 be known that there may
be no dispute about II If generally satisfactory.
or that the law may he changed If commonly
regarded as hideous violation OF sense and
Justice. II. on the other hand, the practices
which have been allowed in our criminal courts
here are reckless and ignorant violations of
the law Of evidence. that fact ought to be de
termined soon that the intolerable outrage of
imprisoning men under illegal and false con-
yictions pending the correction Of gross errors
by the Court Of Appeals may he ended.
The expert testimony offered by the prosecu-
ton In the Kennedy case was by no means an
extreme example of the length 10 which this
sort of testimony is carried. The prosecution
had two pieces of writing that had been in the
possession OF the murdered woman. which IL
desired 70 fix upon the defendant as tending
to show his presence with her at the hotel.
Therefore IL wished 10 compare these writings
with established writings of the defendant.
Justice Fursman allows this comparison TO he
made by the jurymen. but refuses to permit
any expert 10 instruct them what they must
believe on this subject as the result of expert
of xrbi oh
body else can test. In the Molineux case the
experts went much further They did not
merely undertake TO say that Molineux's ad-
mitted handwriting was that Of the poison
package but that his handwriting resembled
some other disputed handwriting and that this
latter in turn resembled the writing on the
poison package.
In is we'll known that many lawyers, aside
from any opinion on the general merits
Of that case, were struck with astonishment at
the tremendous range given 10 experts In build
ing up their structure Of impressions and opin-
ions placed before the jury in the light of
mathematical demonstrations. was like II
and Il was Ike c, therefore must be Ike C
an utter fallacy for the likeness of \ and h
may not be of the same sort as the likeness be-
tween b and c, and the logical chain is broken
The mathematical demonstration becomes
merely iiupltSslOA oi al pdlu
by the side which wants him TO have that i'm
preston. Too many mistakes are made and
subsequently discovered by experts in perjury
and will caxss to warrant excessive confidence
| in such opinions even when disputed writing
| is the matter at issue. Naturally therefore
there is great objection TO extending the field
of these experts so as 10 allow them TO advise
conviction in other criminal cases on the
strength of their reasoning from a defendants
natural writing TO his copy of disputed writing.
| 10 disputed writing, and so on till some writ
ing more or less directly connected with the
| crime is reached.
Under such circumstances there will be gen
eral satisfaction Justice Fursman's clear
and strong ruling. He says he hopes it will get
! 10 the Court of Appeals and be there passed
upon. IL is difficult 10 see how it can be i'm
the Kennedy proceeding. IL the defendant
| should be acquitted that would end the matter
IL he should be convicted this would not be
one Of the points for him TO appeal ON. for the
ruling is favorable to him. 1t is more likely