Opinion ID: 466309
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: authentication of prock's signature

Text: 34 Prock contends that the district court erred in denying his post-trial motion for acquittal. The motion was based in part on the ground that jurors were permitted to make handwriting comparisons to authenticate Prock's signature on various FHA loan documents. Prock claims that, because the handwriting exemplars given to the jury were check requests containing only the words O.k. Ross, the jury did not have a complete handwriting sample to compare with the FHA documents. 35 This claim is frivolous. Under United States v. Woodson, 526 F.2d 550, 551 (9th Cir.1975) (per curiam), a jury may make handwriting comparisons except under extreme or unusual circumstances. Indeed, Woodson makes clear that the jury is obliged to make such comparisons and draw conclusions from them. 36 Prock contends that use of an incomplete signature exemplar constitutes an extreme or unusual circumstance. But he cites, and we can find, no case supporting this proposition. Extreme or unusual circumstances involve situations where the authenticity of the handwriting is the primary issue in the case, as where forgery is alleged. Our independent examination of the examplars convinces us that a reasonable jury could well conclude that the same person signed the check requests and the loan applications. 37 Moreover, Prock offered no evidence to rebut the authenticity of the signatures here. As the Third Circuit has held, effective rebuttal lessens the danger that jurors will assign improper weight to their comparisons of handwriting samples. United States v. Clifford, 704 F.2d 86, 91 (3rd Cir.1983).