Opinion ID: 336608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authentication and Identification

Text: 25 The District Court permitted testimony concerning the note after Captain Hill testified that he had compared the signature on the note with that of appellant on the signed statement that he had made and found them to be the same. Appellant contends that this comparison was inadequate for purposes of authentication and identification in that Captain Hill was not familiar with his signature. 26 Under Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(2), a writing can be authenticated by (n)onexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for the purposes of litigation. The general rule is that: 27 (A)nyone familiar with the handwriting of a given person may supply authenticating testimony in the form of his opinion that a writing or signature is in the handwriting of that person. Adequate familiarity may be present if the witness has seen the person write, or if he has seen writings purporting to be those of the person in question under circumstances indicating their genuineness. (emphasis original; footnotes omitted) 28 E. Cleary, McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 221, at 547 (2d ed. 1972). Because the signature on the prior signed statement was clearly made in circumstances indicating its genuineness, Captain Hill possessed an adequate familiarity with appellant's signature to authenticate the note. The weight to be given to such testimony was for the jury.B. Best Evidence Rule 29 Appellant contends that testimony concerning the copy of the note should not have been permitted since there was no adequate showing that the original was not available. Captain Hill, however, testified that he had attempted to locate the original note by contacting the criminal investigator and the FBI, but had been unable to find it, although he thought that it probably did still exist. The District Court, satisfied with this explanation, admitted the testimony based upon secondary evidence. 30 Fed.R.Evid. 1004(1) provides that the original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing    is admissible if    (a)ll originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith. There being no evidence of bad faith on the part of the government and the original having been lost, the District Court properly permitted Captain Hill's oral testimony concerning the note. 8