◆ SpookStack

andres that Rosario had the eave wledge and. ite of mind necessary to support her conviction. Such sonsistencies further reinforce my conclusion that the fidence proffered in this case permitted the jury to do little ‘ore than speculate as to Rosario's guilt. isummary, | believe that the evidence adduced by the overnment at trial falls far below the horizon of certainty ve require in criminal prosecutions and is not sufficient to tonvict Rosario beyond a reasonable doubt. Handwriting analysis is at best an inexact science, and at worst mere speculation itself. See, e.g., D. Michael Risinger et al., Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification “Expertise”, 137 U. Pa. L. Rev. 731, 739 (1989) (reporting that "[fJrom the perspective of published empirical verification, handwriting identification expertise is almost nonexistent"). As such, | do not believe that wholly ambiguous testimony from a handwriting "expert" and selected testimony from a witness receiving favorable treatment from the government can 16 satisfy the government's burden of proof. Accordingly, | would reverse Rosario's conviction. http://vis.law. vill. edu/ locator/3d/July1 997/97a1 636p.him Page 28 of 29 -§/10/2005