- 9 -
to account for the original notebook or for apparently missing pages
of the exhibit.7
The photocopied pages show columns of numbers added and
subtracted, accompanied by various marginal notations, at least some
of which were made by law enforcement personnel or by respondent’s
examining agent. Throughout the photocopied pages are faint,
illegible markings as might result from erasures. The notebook
pages reproduced in the photocopied pages contain no identifiable
direct or indirect references to petitioner.
Petitioner denies that any of the handwriting in the
photocopied pages is his. At a pretrial hearing, in response to
petitioner’s inquiry on this point, respondent’s counsel conceded
that the handwriting in the photocopied pages is not petitioner’s.8
Although respondent’s counsel belatedly attempted to retract this
concession at trial, no competent evidence was offered to establish
7 The photocopied pages are numbered C-4 through C-31.
Respondent did not attempt to account for the apparently missing
pages C-1 through C-3. Respondent’s counsel explained only that
the page numbers were “marked by Respondent * * * during
examination”.
8 At trial the next day, respondent’s counsel represented
that he “misspoke” in making this concession and stated “I think
I clarified that later on the record.” The record reflects no
such clarification intelligibly made. To the contrary, it
reflects that respondent’s counsel took no exception when on at
least nine separate occasions during the remainder of the
pretrial hearing, petitioner referred to what he–-and the Court–-
understood to be respondent’s concession and stated that in light
of it, he (petitioner) would forgo calling his own handwriting
witness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011