◆ SpookStack

. ® Page 16 of 29 ed that fact to corroborate the handwriting expert's stimony that she had probably forged the signature on l check. While neither of these factors independently ould be sufficient to support a conviction, taken together iey are sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict.8 . We are not persuaded by Rosario's attempt to characterize Rios's stimony as “exculpatory” for her. Using Rios's testimony, Rosario mplies that she merely unknowingly passed the forged check to Rias nd then passed along the cash to the person or persons who brought in the check. Rosario finds further support for her theory from Rios's testimony that she was "genuinely surprised" when he reported that the check was stolen. As the district court pointed out, however, the jury was not required to believe that Rosario made any of the arguably exculpatory out-of-court statements to Rios. Rosario, Crim. No. 96-277, slip op. at 6. And, in any event, the statements she relies on are not inconsistent with guilt. Simply stated, the jury had no reason to believe that Rosario was being truthful with Rios. Indeed, the jury could have just as well believed that Finally, we acknowledge that this is a close case. Indeed, were we sitting as triers of fact, we very well may have come http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1 997/97a1636p.htm 5/10/2005