Opinion ID: 73730
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ziegler’s Testimony

Text: Paul contends that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Ziegler’s testimony as an expert document examiner because: (1) his handwriting analysis failed to meet the reliability requirements of Daubert; (2) Ziegler’s testimony did not assist the trier of fact; and (3) Ziegler’s testimony was more prejudicial than probative under Federal Rules of Evidence 403.
Paul argues that Ziegler’s testimony is not admissible under the Daubert guidelines because handwriting analysis does not qualify as reliable scientific evidence. His argument is without merit.2 In Daubert, the Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 controls 2 Courts have long received handwriting analysis testimony as admissible evidence. See United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147, 1160-61 (6th Cir. 1997) (handwriting expert’s testimony admissible to show that signatures on numerous documents were defendant’s); United States v. Velasquez, 64 F.3d 844, 848-50 (3d Cir. 1995) (handwriting expert witness admissible). 5 decisions regarding the admissibility of expert testimony.3 The Supreme Court declared that under rule 702, when “[f]aced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony . . . the trial judge must determine at the outset pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592. The Supreme Court stated that “[t]he inquiry envisioned by Rule 702 is, we emphasize, a flexible one” and that “Rule 702 . . . assign[s] to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594, 597. The Court also listed several factors to assist in the determination of whether evidence is scientifically reliable.4 See Daubert, 509 U.S. 59295. Many circuits were split at the time of trial, however, on whether Daubert should apply to nonscientific expert testimony. Some held that the application of Daubert is limited to scientific testimony, while others used Daubert’s guidance to ensure the reliability of all expert testimony presented at trial. Compare McKendall v. Crown Control Corp., 122 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 1997) (limiting the application of Daubert to the evaluation of scientific testimony); with Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc., 121 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that the application of Daubert is not limited to scientific knowledge). 3 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides: “If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the court to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. 4 The Daubert factors include: (1) whether the theory or technique the expert employs is generally accepted in the scientific community; (2) whether the theory has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) whether the theory can and has been tested; and (4) whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-95. 6 Recently, however, in Kumho Tire Company, LTD. v. Carmichael, the Supreme Court held that Daubert’s “gatekeeping” obligation, requiring the trial judge’s inquiry into both the expert’s relevance and reliability, applies not only to testimony based on “scientific” testimony, but to all expert testimony. Kumho, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1174 (1999). The Court further noted that rules 702 and 703 give all expert witnesses testimonial leeway unavailable to other witnesses on the presumption that the expert’s opinion “will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline.” Kumho, 119 S. Ct. at 1174 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592). Moreover, the Court held that a trial judge may consider one or more of the specific Daubert factors when doing so will help determine that expert’s reliability. Kumho, 119 S. Ct. at 1175. But, as the Court stated in Daubert, the test of reliability is a “flexible” one, and Daubert’s list of specific factors neither necessarily nor solely applies to all experts or in every case. Kumho, 119 S. Ct. at 1175 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594). Alternatively, Kumho declares that “the law grants a district court the same broad latitude when it decides how to determine reliability as it enjoys in respect to its ultimate reliability determination.” Kumho, 119 S. Ct. at 1171 (citing General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143 (1997) (stating that courts of appeals are to apply “abuse of discretion” standard when reviewing district court’s reliability determination)).
Paul also asserts that Ziegler’s testimony was inadmissible because it did not assist the jury’s understanding of the evidence. Properly qualified expert witnesses may testify regarding their specialized knowledge in a given field if it “would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also United States v. Rouco, 765 F.2d 983, 995 (11th Cir. 1985) (arguing that counsel may use an expert if the expert’s 7 testimony can offer something “beyond the understanding and experience of the average citizen”), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1124 (1986); United States v. Burchfield, 719 F.2d 356 (11th Cir. 1983) (explaining that expert testimony is admissible where it is “the kind that enlightens and informs lay persons without expertise in a specialized field”). Paul has not challenged on appeal Ziegler’s qualifications as an expert on handwriting analysis. In fact, at the time of the trial, Ziegler: (1) was a full time handwriting examiner for 30 years; (2) was a member of four professional handwriting analysis organizations; (3) established both the Secret Service’s and the Naval Investigative Service’s “questioned document” laboratories; (4) lectured and taught extensively in the field of handwriting analysis; and (5) trained new “questioned document” examiners for several law enforcement organizations. Consequently, we hold that Ziegler’s expert testimony could assist the jury.
Paul asserts that the district court should have excluded Ziegler’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 as prejudicial because he claims the jury would have believed that Ziegler’s analysis was scientific when it was not.5 Paul, however, cites no authority excluding testimony from an expert handwriting examiner on the basis that it sounded scientific, but was not. To the contrary, the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Jones concluded that the ability of the jury to perform the same visual comparisons as the expert “cuts against the danger of undue prejudice from the mystique attached to ‘experts.’” 107 F.3d 1147, 1160-61 (6th Cir. 1997). As 5 Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. 8 was true in Jones, Ziegler specifically identified points of comparison that he recognized between the writing of the extortion note and the handwriting examples that Paul provided. The jury was free to conduct its own comparison and reach its own conclusion regarding the author of the extortion note. Moreover, Ziegler acknowledged on cross-examination that no licensing board existed for questioned documents examiners, and the profession is not subject to standards that quantify or measure the work of individual examiners. Given Ziegler’s admissions, the jury would not have been confused whether handwriting analysis is scientific or is unassailable. Therefore, this court cannot conclude that Ziegler’s qualifications prejudiced Paul. Consequently, we hold that the district court did not err in admitting Ziegler’s testimony.