28 U.S.C. § 1731
Handwriting
The admitted or proved handwriting of any person shall be admissible, for purposes of comparison, to determine genuineness of other handwriting attributed to such person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases, 1950–2019 · leading case: United States v. Michael Bikundi, Sr., 926 F.3d 761 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
United States v. Michael Bikundi, Sr., 926 F.3d 761 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “28 U.S.C. § 1731 (“The admitted or proved handwriting of any person shall be admissible, for purposes of comparison, to determine genuineness of other handwriting attributed to such person.”
United States v. Lamont S. Carter, United States of Am. v. Jerome R. Patterson, United States of Am. v. Jerome R. Patterson, 522 F.2d 666 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “At the trial and before this court, the government asserted that the drawings were admissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1731 . 61 We find that statute to *685 be inapplicable to the drawings we are here concerned with, as, by its own terms, the statute is limited to handwriting.”
United States v. Kathleen Kremser Jones, 107 F.3d 1147 (6th Cir. 1997). “28 U.S.C. § 1731 provides: "The admitted or proved handwriting of any person shall be admissible, for purposes of comparison, to determine genuineness of other handwriting attributed to such person.”
United States v. Keene, 341 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2003). “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1731 , “[t]he admitted or proved handwriting of any person shall be admissible, for purposes of comparison, to determine genuineness of other handwriting attributed to such person.”
United States v. Frank Mangan & Kevin Mangan, 575 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1978). “Although no witness testified that these were indeed written by Frank Mangan,' the judge permitted them to be used as exemplars because of the statutory presumption, IRC § 6064, of the genuineness of the signatures on the tax returns, the similarity of these signatures to those…”
United States v. Harold Lloyd Phillips, 869 F.2d 1361 (10th Cir. 1988). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1731 . Thus, the jury was entitled to make such a comparison, and appropriate evidence was admitted by which it could do so.”
United States v. Clifford, Russell, 704 F.2d 86 (3rd Cir. 1983). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1731 (1976); Fed.R. Evid. 901(b)(3).”
Elmer Joseph Scharfenberger, Cross-Appellee v. John W. Wingo & Jerry L. Wilson, Cross-Appellants, 542 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1976). “28 U.S.C. § 1731 provides: The admitted or proved handwriting of any person shall be admissible, for purposes of comparison, to determine genuineness of other handwriting attributed to such person.”
United States v. Ediberto A. Alvarez-Farfan, 338 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2003). “” When the district court ruled that Alvarez could not admit the debriefing statement and receipt into evidence for handwriting comparison, it stated: The reason I rejected the offer of the document is that there isn’t any competent evidence of similarity of handwriting in the…”
United States v. Bowles, 751 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2014). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1731 (“The admitted or proved handwriting of any person shall be admissible, for purposes of comparison, to determine genuineness of other handwriting attributed to such person.”
Norwest Fin. Consum. Disc. Co. v. Koch (In Re Koch), 83 B.R. 898 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988). “28 U.S.C. § 1731 and Fed.R.Evid. 901 allow a trier of fact to determine, by the method of comparison, whether a signature is genuine or forged.”
Robert L. Strauss v. United States, 311 F.2d 926 (5th Cir. 1963). “§ 1732 , but the objection runs to the claimed want of proof of the signature. It is elementary, putting aside the expert testimony of genuineness of the signatures, that the jury was entitled to draw their own conclusion as to the genuineness of the signature on the various…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.