◆ SpookStack

was proper because Rios s testimon at Rosario possessed the check provided the same corroboration for the handwriting experts testimony that the fingerprint evidence in Rivamonte and Richardson did Wh tth bt f I http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July199 ~ u 92 . | . . v a is I o forensic gymnastics neglects to explain, however, is that the government's fingerprint expert was unable to identify any finger or palm prints belonging to Rosario on the Andrade check. App. at 42A-43A. Thus, the government was forced to rely on Rios's testimony as the "equivalent" of fingerprint evidence precisely because there was no fingerprint evidence available to support the conclusion that Rosario forged Ana Andrades name on the back of the stolen check Rather than lend credibility to the ambiguous handwriting testimony offered in this case the governments reliance on Rios s testimony highlights the dearth of evidence offered by the government to meet its burden of proof Simply stated l The majority correctly states that in Henderson the government offered no evidence that Mr Henderson had ever possessed the stolen check. Mai Opinion at 8 l note however, that the government similarly failed to offer any evidence specifically relating to Mr Henderson s intent to CIGTFGLIO Knowledge or state or mind Page 26 of 29 5/10/2005