PARRA

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Chatman v. United States, 557 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1977)
  …the handwriting exemplars and the check endorsement, may be sufficient in and of itself to support the conviction on Count I. United States v. Duck, 423 F. 2d 1200 (4th Cir. 1970); United States v. Acosta, 369 F. 2d 41 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 921, 87 S.Ct. 886, 17 L.Ed.2d 792 (1967). In the present case, however, corroboration was provided by testimony showing that the payee’s mail was forwarded at approximately the time his check would normally have been delivered and would, therefore, have…
• United States v. Galvin, 394 F.2d 228 (3d Cir. 1968)
  …d Ed. 1940). In addition, the opinion of a handwriting expert, once admitted, can be used for the same purposes and to the same effect as the opinion of other experts, see, e. g., United States v. Acosta, 369 F. 2d 41, 42 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 921, 87 S.Ct. 886, 17 L.Ed.2d 792 (1967), and is not inadmissible under the Opinion Rule or otherwise because it expresses a probability, e. g., 7 Wigmore, Evidence, § 1976 (3d Ed. 1940); Curtis v. A. Garcia y Cia, 272 F. 2d 235, 242 (3rd Cir. 1959); Be…
• United States v. Duck, 423 F.2d 1200 (4th Cir. 1970)
  …orroborates defendant’s characterization. Defendant does not dispute, as urged by the government in a motion for summary affirmance, that the point was decided adversely to defendant in United States v. Acosta, 369 F. 2d 41 (4 Cir. 1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 921, 87 S.Ct. 886, 17 L.Ed.2d 792 (1967), but defendant asks us to reconsider that decision. This we decline to do and, there being no other issue to warrant the preparation of a brief on behalf of the government and the scheduling of argument, the gove…