◆ SpookStack

Although both Rivamonte and the present appeal had handwriting experts testify that the respective defendants "probably" endorsed the checks, the additional evidence in Rivamonte constituted sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The fingerprints and the defendant's account number support the conclusion drawn by the handwriting expert in Rivamonte. Henderson, 693 F.2d at 1032. Here, although Rosario's fingerprints were not found on the check, Rios's testimony established that Rosario was in possession of the check. Thus, Rios's testimony that Rosario possessed the check provided the same corroboration for the handwriting expert's testimony that the fingerprint evidence in Rivamonte and Richardson did. See also United States v. Chatman, 557 F.2d 147, 148 (8th . Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (upholding check forgery conviction because accessibility of payee's mailbox to defendant provided corroboration for less than conclusive expert handwriting testimony). In our view, because the evidence established that Rosario did, in fact, possess the check, the jury could have http://vis.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1636p.htm Page 15 of 29 5/10/2005