◆ SpookStack

* Tite government argues, however, that Taylor's testimony that Rosario probably forged the check, coupled with Rios's _ testimony that Rosario had given him the check, would | allow the jury to make the inference that Rosario had forged the check. Moreover, according to the governmeni, once the jury concluded that Rosario had forged the check, it could logically conclude that she had done so knowingly and willfully and with intent to defraud. We agree. By establishing that Rosario possessed the check, and thus had the opportunity to forge it, the government provided validation for Taylor's testimony that Rosario had probably forged the check.7 7. Once the jury was provided with enough information to conclude that Rosario had forged the check, it certainly could have inferred that she acted knowingly and willfully and with the intent to defraud. Of course, the requisite state of mind elements only follow if the jury believed that Rosario did, in fact, forge the check. See, e.g., United States v. Hall, 632 F.2d 500, 503 (Sth Cir. 1980) (holding that once forgery was established, inferences of knowledge and unlawful intention followed). Given the Andrades' testimony that they did not know Rosario nor authorize her to endorse the check, the jury could have assumed that Rosario forged the http://vis.law. vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1636p.htm Page 12 of 29 5/10/2005