◆ SpookStack

the check: the defendant's fingerprints were on the check; the defendant's account number was written on the back of the check; and the payees' names were written on the | defendant's pre-encoded deposit slip. Rivamonte, 666 F.2d at 516-17. The court held that "a jury reasonably could conclude that this evidence is inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of appellant's innocence." Id. at 517. Although in Richardson and Rivamonte the government offered slightly more circumstantial evidence than was offered at Rosario's trial, we are nevertheless convinced that the evidence establishing that the respective defendants had possessed the check was of primary significance in those cases. Our conclusion is bolstered by the Eleventh Circuit's post-Rivamonte decision in United States v. Henderson, 693 F.2d 1028 (11th Cir. 1982). In Henderson, the court reversed a check forgery conviction based solely on ambiguous handwriting testimony and evidence showing that the defendant's wife had cashed the stolen check. The government offered no evidence that Henderson had ever possessed the check. Distinguishing Rivamonte, the court noted: http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July 997/97a1636p.htm Page 14 of 29 9/10/2005