Opinion ID: 887195
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Handwriting Expert's Opinion on an Ultimate Issue

Text: ¶ 31 Cheryl argues, under Rule 702, M.R.Evid., that, although the District Court properly allowed Blanco to testify to similarities and dissimilarities between documents of unknown authorship and documents that Cheryl had written, it should not have allowed Blanco to testify to the ultimate conclusion that Cheryl authored the documents in question. Cheryl cites United States v. Paul (11th Cir.1999), 175 F.3d 906, United States v. Hines (D.Mass.1999), 55 F.Supp.2d 62, and two other federal district court cases for the proposition that, because the jury could have come to the ultimate conclusion without help from Blanco, Blanco need not have testified to that ultimate conclusion. [1] ¶ 32 Rule 704, M.R.Evid., provides that [t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. This rule allows Blanco to testify to the ultimate conclusion of who wrote the letters.