Statements by Courts of Law
In Mary S Re vs. Longs Drug Stores, appeal filed by Respondent on June 1, 1993, The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, San Francisco, CA, augmented the Hearing Officer's reference to Matley's testimony: "He testified unequivocally that investigator number one forged the signature of investigator number two …. He stated that the characteristics of the writer [of the interview confession] were those of a person under severe stress …. [T]his could not be accounted for merely by a person's being caught in a wrongful act." Ms. Re's award was increased.
In Jones vs. Hester, Denton County, TX, under DuPont/Daubert guidelines, Judge Donald R. Windle ruled on July 28, 1997, that Mr. Matley "meets the standards for scientific endeavor."
In an unpublished opinion, California Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District, In re the Marriage of Ronald F. and Marie Richardson, etc., filed April 13, 2000, states at page 6 in reference to Mr. Matley's testimony at trial: "We have reviewed the testimony of the handwriting expert and find it credible and unimpeachable."
In an unpublished opinion, California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, In re the Marriage of Nilsen, filed May 11, 2000, states at page 12: "Matley testified the notes dated June 1, 1988 and July 16, 1991 could not have been signed on those dates, because the paper … was not available before December 1991. [Respondent's counsel] then stipulated the notes were prepared and signed in March 1995 …. [Matley's] examination of the ledgers … led him to conclude entries reflecting annual accumulation of interest … had all been made at the same time."
In Chan vs. Au, San Francisco Superior Court No. 305344, the Honorable Donald S. Mitchell issued his Statement of Decision on April 30, 2001. At page 7 His Honor says of Matley's testimony: "Contrary to the Defendant's testimony, very credible expert testimony established that the 'Promissory Notes' were each signed as part of a group, as one rested atop another when signed. Further, the expert testimony established that the first Promissory Note, dated September 9, 1997, was from a computer-generated form from which all the other form Promissory Notes were photocopied at the same time."
In Santana vs. Women's Workout and Weight Loss Center, Inc., 2001 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1186, appellate decision filed November 29, 2001, Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District, discusses at length statements in Matley's Declaration filed with the Trial Court. The Court of Appeal states as facts regarding technical matters, such as font size and legibility, relevant representations made in Matley's Declaration. The granting of Motion for Summary Judgment was reversed with costs awarded to Plaintiff. Defendant settled prior to trial.