- 10 -
failure to comply with the provisions of this
paragraph, unless the failure is shown to be due to
good cause and unless the failure does not unduly
prejudice the opposing party, such as by significantly
impairing the opposing party’s ability to cross-examine
the expert witness * * *.
Petitioner has not shown that the failure of Ms. Marsh’s
report to include the facts, data, and analysis that underlie her
opinion is due to good cause. Moreover, we believe that
permitting direct testimony in addition to that submitted in the
report would have unduly prejudiced respondent’s ability to
cross-examine Ms. Marsh. We accordingly sustain respondent’s
objection. Petitioner’s expert’s direct testimony is restricted
to the material contained in the expert report.
In rebuttal to Ms. Marsh’s report, respondent presented the
report and testimony of James M. Davidson, an employee of the IRS
who is also a certified document examiner. Mr. Davidson works at
respondent’s National Forensic Laboratory in Chicago. He is a
member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
and has been certified by the American Board of Forensic Document
Examiners. Mr. Davidson compared the signature on the consent to
26 known exemplars of petitioner’s signature. Mr. Davidson
determined that the exemplars fell into three groups: 13 were
quickly written abbreviated last names; 10 were formally written
with distinct letter definition, and three were shortened,
quickly written signatures. Mr. Davidson found exemplars in the
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