Blocking a Blitz of Lab Tests
In a divorce case, the husband faxed to his attorney an agreement whereby the wife agreed to go away poverty-stricken. The husband claimed he only had a copy faxed to himself, having lost the original. His attorney faxed it on to the wife's attorney, who faxed it to me. Since there were multiple significant differences between the faxed signature and the wife's exemplars, and none of the differences could be credited to the faxing process, I reported that the signature was false.
The husband's attorney retained a document examiner who had two years' government training plus apprenticeship, FBI and Secret Service courses, retirement out of California Department of Justice laboratory, certification by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE), membership in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), etc. This examiner demanded the fax received in my office be sent to his lab for a plethora of unsupervised tests, all of which could only properly be run either on the nonexistent original or on the husband's copy. The case settled before this forensic fiasco could go forth.
A colleague consulted me in a second case where this same examiner demanded unsupervised testing of a will, using several unspecified procedures. I suggested compelling the examiner to make specific disclosures about his proposed tests and their relevance. The examiner failed to do so, so the judge denied the testing.
In a third case the same examiner made the same demand of dental records. He said ultraviolet (UV) light was nondestructive of documents, and he claimed an observer would cause a list of difficulties. Defense attorney consulted me. I explained that UV damages documents and cited authorities. Apparently government courses and certification tests by ABFDE fail to cover the commonly known dangers of UV. The opposing examiner replied to my strictly technical critique with personal insults. The judge ordered that I deliver the documents, witness the testing, and return the documents to defense counsel's office, all in the same day.
In a fourth case counsel for plaintiff called, saying defendant had retained this same individual to run his many tests on a key document defendant denied signing. Later counsel told me that right after he disclosed me, this examiner had withdrawn from the case unexpectedly and without explanation. Before trial defendant stipulated to having signed the document.
Did the examiner become gun-shy? Who knows? But these cases show that you need not surrender original documents to unsupervised and possibly destructive testing just because examiners with impressive paper credentials and government background demand it.
Contact me for evaluation of the relevance and effects of proposed tests on your valuable evidential documents.