◆ SpookStack

festimony of Rios for support that ©. forged the check. Rios's testimony, it argues, establishes that Rosario both possessed and had the opportunity to forge the check, _ thereby allowing the jury to infer that Rosario did, in fact, forge Ana Andrade's signature on the check. By presenting evidence that Rosario possessed the check and had the opportunity to sign it, the government contends that it provided validation for Taylor's equivocal opinion that Rosario probably forged the check. In support of its argument, the government relies primarily on two cases where courts affirmed forgery convictions based in part on testimony from a handwriting expert indicating that the defendant had "probably" forged the stolen check. See United States v. Richardson, 755 F.2d 685 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam); United States v. Rivamonte, 666 F.2d 515 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). In my view, however, reliance on Richardson and -Rivamonte is imprudent for a number of reasons. First, notwithstanding the assertion that the government offered only "slightly" more circumstantial evidence in Richardson and Rivamonte than that adduced here, Maj. Opinion at 8, ihe records in those cases demonstrate that there was http://vls.law. vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97.a1 636p.htm Page 20 of 29 5/10/2005