- 9 -
the Independent Association of Questioned Document Examiners, the
World Association of Document Examiners, and the American Board
of Forensic Examiners. Her report identified 20 sample
signatures of petitioner, with respect to which she compared the
signature on the consent. The report indicated that “All
standard testing procedures were used in this examination”. Her
report came to the following conclusion:
After an examination of all the documents submitted, it
is my opinion that Dr. Malachinski did not write the
name “L.S. Malachinski” on the document at issue, the
IRS Consent Form dated June 1, 1983. In addition, it
is my opinion that the same individual wrote both dates
of “6/1/83.”
Ms. Marsh’s report did not provide the facts which formed
the basis for her conclusion that petitioner had not signed the
consent. Nor did the report set forth Ms. Marsh’s reasons for
that conclusion. At trial, petitioner attempted to elicit from
Ms. Marsh the factual basis for her conclusion. Respondent
objected to this attempt.
Rule 143(f)(1) in pertinent part states:
(f) Expert Witness Reports: (1) Unless otherwise
permitted by the Court upon timely request, any party
who calls an expert witness shall cause that witness to
prepare a written report for submission to the Court
and to the opposing party. The report * * * shall
state the witness’ opinion and the facts or data on
which that opinion is based. The report shall set
forth in detail the reasons for the conclusion, and it
will be marked as an exhibit, identified by the
witness, and received in evidence as the direct
testimony of the expert witness, * * * An expert
witness’ testimony will be excluded altogether for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011