◆ SpookStack

 ~ uto~the contrary. ln @, the court helgat once forgery is conclusively proven, inferences of fact regarding possession, intent and knowledge can be permissibly drawn by the 13 government. ld_. at 502. The handwriting expert in @, however, provided an uneguivocal opinion that the defendant had forged the payee's name on the stolen check, thereby providing the government with conclusive factual proof of the forgery element of the offense from which inferences tending to establish the other elements of the . offense could be drawn. ld_; Here, in contrast, the government has offered only ambiguous, inconclusive testimony regarding the forgery element of the offense. As such, there is no conclusively proven fact of forgery from which the government could draw inferences tending to s establish the other elements of the offense of conviction. My interpretation of the case law is supported by the post-Rivamonte decision in United States v. Henderson, 693 F.2d 1028
1th Cir. 1982!, which, in my view, does not bolster the government's argument. ln Henderson, the court reversed a check forgery conviction based on ambiguous handwriting testimony and circumstantial evidence tending http://vls law vill edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1636p.htm I g Page 23 of 29 5/10/2005