United States v. Johnsted
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188251
W.D. Wis.2013Background
- Defendant Gerald Johnsted charged with mailing threatening communications (18 U.S.C. § 876) and conveying false information (18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1)); disputed evidence is handwriting/hand-printing analysis.
- Questioned items: several mailed threatening notes and envelopes that were hand-printed.
- Government obtained known exemplars from Johnsted; USPS examiner Gale Bolsover produced a report concluding Johnsted was the writer.
- Defendant moved to exclude Bolsover’s report and testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert/Kumho gatekeeping standards.
- Court held a Daubert hearing and evaluated reliability of handwriting/hand-printing analysis as applied to the specific samples.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of handwriting/hand-printing expert testimony under Rule 702 | Handwriting/printing analysis is a valid forensic discipline; standards and examiner training support admissibility | The underlying principles lack sufficient scientific validation, especially for hand printing; methodology is subjective and untested | Excluded: court found hand-printing analysis here unreliable and Bolsover’s conclusions unsupported |
| Whether hand printing differs materially from cursive handwriting for reliability | Government: no meaningful distinction; same standards and procedures apply | Defendant: authoritative sources and some studies show critical differences; hand printing understudied | Court: hand printing raises distinct reliability concerns and existing studies do not establish validity in this context |
| Adequacy of testing, peer review, and error rates for the technique | Government: cites studies and standards, peer review in forensic literature, lab review processes | Defendant: studies are limited, ambiguous, lack double-blind testing, higher error rates for printing | Court: testing and peer-reviewed support are inadequate for hand-printing; lack of blind studies and known error rates undermines reliability |
| Sufficiency of Bolsover’s case-specific proffer | Government: Bolsover is a trained FDE whose conclusion assists the trier of fact | Defendant: Bolsover’s report is conclusory and lacks documented bases for the identification | Court: Bolsover’s report was a “naked opinion” without explained basis; exclusion warranted because methodology was not reliably applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (trial judges must ensure scientific evidence is relevant and reliable)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non-scientific expert testimony; reliability judged in case-specific context)
- Deputy v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 345 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting divergence of opinion among courts about handwriting analysis)
- United States v. Prime, 431 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2005) (appellate review of district court admissibility decision is for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Paul, 175 F.3d 906 (11th Cir. 1999) (discussing appellate standard and admissibility of handwriting evidence)