United States v. Robby Harris, 786 F.3d 443

In Oct. 2012 a threatening letter to Congresswoman Candice Miller was mailed from a Pontiac, MI return address; the letter threatened murder and extortion.
FBI investigation linked the return address to Cynthia Hiller, who denied writing the letter and produced two handwritten love letters she said Robby Harris had given her.
Postal carrier Theresa Orsette had prior familiarity with Harris’s handwriting from handling magazine subscription cards he handed her at two addresses; she recognized the distinctive, nearly illegible hand.
Forensic testing on other letters bearing Hiller’s return address recovered Harris’s DNA on two letters and his fingerprint on a third; no prints/DNA on the Miller letter.
At trial the government admitted the Miller letter and other writings and elicited lay-witness handwriting-identification testimony from Agent Juan Herrera, Hiller, and Orsette (none were expert witnesses).
Harris was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 876(c); he appealed, arguing the lay handwriting ID testimony violated Fed. R. Evid. 701 and invaded the jury’s province. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of lay-witness handwriting identification under Rules 701 & 901(b)(2)	Government: lay testimony is admissible if witness had prior familiarity not acquired for litigation and testimony meets Rule 701 requirements	Harris: witnesses’ opinions were merely comparisons the jury could make, so testimony was unhelpful under Rule 701 and invaded jury province	Admissible: witnesses had sufficient prior familiarity (not acquired for litigation) and testimony satisfied Rule 701 and Rule 901(b)(2)
Whether lay testimony impermissibly told jury what to conclude (impermissible expert-like influence)	Government: witnesses stated basis for opinions and did not purport to interpret broader investigation; jury could weigh testimony	Harris: testimony risked undue influence similar to prohibited lay testimony in Freeman	Held: unlike Freeman, witnesses explained their personal basis; they did not rely on undisclosed investigation or claim special expertise, so no improper intrusion on jury function

United States v. Samet, 466 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2006) (handwriting ID testimony must satisfy Rule 701 and Rule 901(b)(2))
United States v. Ali, 616 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2010) (familiarity from limited exposures can suffice under Rule 901(b)(2))
United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2001) (courts permit handwriting ID based on various degrees of prior familiarity)
Harris v. J.B. Robinson Jewelers, 627 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2010) (lay opinion admissible if well founded on personal knowledge and subject to cross-examination)
United States v. Freeman, 730 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2013) (vacating conviction where agent’s lay testimony relied on thousands of undisclosed calls and impermissibly guided jury inferences)
United States v. Maddox, 944 F.2d 1223 (6th Cir. 1991) (jury may assess credibility of witness identifications when photograph/evidence is before them)