◆ SpookStack

endorsement of the check with the requisite intent to defraud. In reaching this conclusion, we are persuaded by the reasoning put forth in United States v. Richardson, 755 F.2d 685 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) and United States v. Rivamonte, 666 F.2d 515 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). In both Richardson and Rivamonte, as here, the handwriting expert's testimony established only that it was "probable" that the defendant had forged the check. In Richardson, the court upheld a check forgery conviction challenged on insufficiency grounds. The handwriting expert testified that Richardson had "probably" signed the check. This testimony was supplemented by evidence that Richardson had access to a key to the victim's home, that she had made a deposit in the exact same amount as the stolen check, and that her fingerprints were on the stolen check. In upholding the conviction, the court concluded that this was "ample evidence to support the verdict." Richardson, 755 F.2d at 686. Similarly, in Rivamonte, the court upheld a check forgery conviction based on the following evidence: a handwriting expert's testimony that the defendant had "probably" signed http://vis.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1636p.htm _ Page 13 of 29 5/10/2005