Computer-Assisted Handwriting Analysis: Interaction with Legal Issues in U.S. Courts

  • Kenneth A. Manning
  • Sargur N. Srihari
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5718)

Abstract

Advances in the development of computer-assisted handwriting analysis have led to the consideration of a computational system by courts in the United States. Computer-assisted handwriting analysis has been introduced in the context of Frye or Daubert hearings conducted to determine the admissibility of handwriting testimony by questioned document examiners, as expert witnesses, in civil and criminal proceedings. This paper provides a comparison of scientific and judicial methods, and examines concerns over reliability of handwriting analysis expressed in judicial decisions. Recently, the National Research Council assessed that “the scientific basis for handwriting comparisons needs to be strengthened”. Recent studies involving computer-assisted handwriting analysis are reviewed in light of the concerns expressed by the judiciary and National Research Council. A future potential role for computer-assisted handwriting analysis in the courts is identified.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    National Research Council: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, pp. 4–11. National Academies Press, Washington DC (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wigmore, Evidence §1367 (Chadbourn rev.) (1974)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir (1923)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin, M.M., Capra, D.J., Faust, A., Rossi, F.: New York Evidence Handbook, Novel Scientific Evidence, Sec. 7.2.3., 2nd edn., p. 586. Aspen Publishers, New York City (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    509 U.S. 579 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    526 U.S. 137 (1999) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Research Council: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, pp. 5–29. National Academies Press, Washington DC (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farrell, R.: Richardson on Evidence (Cum supp. 1997-2008) Sec. 7-318., 11th edn., p. 485. Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    People vs. Silvestri, 44 N.Y. 2d 260, 266 (1978)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nimely vs. City of New York, 414 F. 3d 381, 396 (2nd Cir. 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    United States vs Williams, 506 F. 3d 151, 162 (2nd Cir. 2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    U.S. v. Starczepyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027, 1037. (S.D.N.Y. 1995) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    U.S. v. Saelee, 162 F. Supp. 2d, 1097, 1102. (D. Alaska 2001) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. v. Crisp, 324 F. 3d. 261, 280. (4th Cir. 2003) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Starczepyzel, 880 F. Supp. at 1037 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. v. Hines, 55 F. Supp. 2d. 62, 68 (D. Mass 1999) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Research Council: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, pp. 5–30. National Academies Press, Washington DC (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuckuck, W., Rieger, B., Steinke, K.: Automatic Writer Recognition. In: Proc. 1979. Carnahan Conf. on Crime Countermeasures. University of Kentucky, Lexington (1979)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Found, B., Rogers, D., Schmittat, R.: Matrix Analysis: A Technique to Investigate the Spatial Properties of Handwritten Images. J. Forens Doc. Exam (Fall 1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plamondon, R., Srihari, S.N.: On-line and off-line handwriting recognition: A comprehensive survey. IEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 22(1), 63–84 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Srihari, S.N., Leedham, C.G.: A survey of Computer Methods in Forensic Document Examination. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Graphonomics Society, November 2-5, 2003. IGS, Scottsdale (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Srihari, S.N., Cha, S.H., Arora, H., Lee, S.: Individuality of Handwriting. J. Forens Sci. 44(4), 856–872 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huber, R.A., Headrick, A.M.: Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fed. R. Evid. 104 (a)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Janopoulos v Harvey L. Walner & Assoc., 866 F. Supp. 1086 (N. D. Ill 1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    U.S. v. Prime, 431 F. 3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    U.S. v. Yagman 2007 WL 4409618 (C.D.Cal. 2007) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    U.S. v. Gricco, 2002 WL 746037, *3-*4 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Srihari, S.N., Zhang, C., Tomai, S.J., Lee, Z., Shi, Y.C., Shin, A.: A system for handwriting matching and recognition. In: Symposium on Document Image Understanding Technology (SDIUT 2003), Greenbelt, MD (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Version 1.3, March 3, 2008. 2003-2008 The Research Foundation of State University of New York. All Rights Reserved 2003-2008 CEDAR Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved, Portions of the product were created using LEADTOOLS 1991-2002 LEAD Technologies, Inc. (2003-2008) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Srihari, S., Srinivasan, H., Desai, K.: Questioned Document Examination Using CEDAR-FOX (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kabra, S., Srinivasan, H., Huang, C., Srihari, S.: On Computing Strength of Evidence for Writer Verification. In: ICDAR (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Srihari, S.N., Huang, C., Srinivasan, H.: On the Discriminability of the Handwriting of Twins. J. Forens. Sci. 53(2), 430–446 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    U.S. v. Starczecpyzel, 880 F. Supp 1027, 1039 (1995) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sax, M.J., Vanderhaar, H.: On the General Acceptance of Handwriting Identification Principles. J. Forens Sci. 50(1), 119–124 (2005); Kelly, J.S., Carney, B.B., Sax, M.J., Vanderhaar, H.: On the General Acceptance of Handwriting Principles. J. Forens Sci. 50(1), 119–124 (2005); J. Forens. Sci. 50(5) (September 2005); Purdy, D.C., Sax, M.J., Vanderhaar, H.: On the General Acceptance of Handwriting Identification Principles. J. Forens Sci. 50(1), 119–126 (2005); Author’s response; J. Forens Sci. 5(5) (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y. 2d 417, 438 (citing Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later 80) Columbia Law Review (1197, 1209 – 1210)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth A. Manning
    • 1
  • Sargur N. Srihari
    • 2
  1. 1.Phillips Lytle LLP, BuffaloNYUSA
  2. 2.University at Buffalo, AmherstNYUSA

Personalised recommendations