Finding that a handwriting analysis was unreliable, a federal judge rejected expert testimony sought by a plaintiff who claimed her name was forged on an interview release.
Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the case of Almeciga v. Center for Investigative Reporting, 15-cv-4319, saying that “handwriting analysis in general is unlikely to meet the admissibility requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702″ and that the testimony of the particular expert before him did not meet those standards.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
