◆ SpookStack

aside from Rios's testimony the government failed to adduce any additional evidence to validate Taylor's equivocal conclusion that Rosario signed the stolen check. Lacking further additional evidence like that offered in the Rivamonte and Richardson cases (e.g., fingerprints, palmprints, pre-coded deposit slips), | fail to understand how Rios's testimony could possibly transform Taylor's ambiguous conclusion into factual proof sufficient to establish Rosario's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, | am concerned because parts of Rios's testimony directly contradict inferences that the jury was supposed to have drawn from Rios's testimony. For instance, on cross- examination Rios testified that Rosario did not know that the check was stolen. App. at 52A. Such testimony clearly undercuts the idea that the jury could infer that Rosario had the requisite knowledge and intent to defraud necessary to support a conviction under § 510(a)(2). Moreover, it also puts the majority in the awkward position of relying on Rios's testimony in order to bolster the inferences that Rosario possessed and forged the stolen check, but ignoring Rios's testimony in order to draw the http://vis.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1 997/97a1 636p.htm Page 27 of 29 5/10/2005