◆ SpookStack

circumstantial evidence specifically related to the respective defendants' possession of the stolen checks, their intent to | defraud and their states of mind. Such was not the case here; where the government, lacking sufficient evidence to establish any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, was forced to ask the jury to speculate that Rosario forged the check, passed the check with intent to defraud, and acted with requisite knowledge and willfulness. | do not believe we can contort Richardson and Rivamonte to support the proposition that testimony from a handwriting expert indicating that a defendant "probably" forged a stolen check in conjunction with evidence showing possession of the stolen check by the defendant constitutes sufficient evidence to affirm a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 510(a)(2). Simply stated, there is no such baseline position established in the case law. Instead, Richardson and Rivamonte suggest that an "expert" opinion that the defendant probably forged the check, coupled with sufficient additional circumstantial evidence demonstrating possession, willfulness, knowledge and intent to defraud, is necessary before a conviction will be affirmed. United States v. Hall, 632 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1980), is not http://vis.law.vill.ed u/locator/3d/July1997/97a1636p.htm. Page 22 of 29 5/10/2005