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 two-sentence reference to Mr. Matley’s testimony: “A handwriting expert testified on the claimant’s behalf. He stated that the claimant’s signature on the consent form [that she had stolen a can of soda and a bag of potato chips] was forged.” The augmentation was: “He testified unequivocally that investigator number one forged the signature of investigator number two on the [interview documents]…. He used as known, or control signatures … also the subpoena form signed by the investigator…. He stated that the characteristics of the writer [of the 2-page interview confession] were those of a person under severe stress. [H]e concluded that this could not be accounted for merely by a person’s being caught in a wrongful act.”
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In an unpublished opinion, The California Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District,
In re the Marriage of Ronald F. and Marie Richardson, Ronald J. Richardson, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v. Marie Richardson, Appellant, 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In an unpublished opinion, The California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District,
In re the Marriage of Dennis A. and Marilyn S. Nilsen, filed May 11, 2000, states at page 12: “On the first day of the hearing, Marilyn called her document expert, Marcel Matley. Matley testified the notes dated June 1, 1988 and July 16, 1991 could not have been signed on those dates, because the paper used for them was not available before December 1991. Rosenberg [Respondent’s counsel] then stipulated the notes were prepared and signed in March 1995. Matley had no direct evidence regarding the time the February 1, 1984 notes were signed. However, his examination of the ledgers maintained by Dennis’s father led him to conclude that the entries reflecting the annual accumulation of interest on those obligations 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 said regarding the testimony of Marcel B. Matley: “Au stated that the promissory notes were not created on the same day (i.e., that each note was signed at or near the time each loan was made). 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. Thus, all the Promissory Note forms were created at the same time and the amounts were entered at the same time, they were all executed at the same time (what the expert called ‘one act activity’) and then they were ordered by date. On redirect, after the expert testified, Au changed his testimony, claiming that ‘I would execute several notes in a group, in a stack….I always signed them in a stack.’”
In Santana vs. Women’s Workout and Weight Loss Center, Inc., 2001 Cal. App. Unpub.
LEXIS 1186, appellate decision filed November 29, 2001, at pages 11 through 14, The Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, discusses the statements made by Marcel B. Matley in affidavit filed with the Trial Court in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Elsewhere in the opinion The Court of Appeal states as facts regarding technical matters, such as font size and legibility, those relevant representations made in Matley’s Affidavit. The granting of Motion for Summary Judgment by Santa Clara County Superior Court, in Ct. No. CV783349, was reversed with costs to Plaintiff. Defendant settled prior to trial.