Lexplug logoLexplug

United States of America v. Chan Ian Saelee

United States District Court, D. Alaska
162 F.Supp.2d 1097 (2001)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Expert testimony regarding handwriting comparison is subject to the reliability standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert framework. Such testimony is inadmissible if the proponent fails to demonstrate the reliability of the underlying principles and methods, including through evidence of empirical testing, peer review, known error rates, and controlling standards.


Facts:

  • Chan Ian Saelee was indicted on charges of importing opium from Thailand.
  • The opium was discovered concealed in Butterfinger candy bars within express mail packages.
  • The packages appeared to have been mailed from the United States but were returned to the sender after an unsuccessful delivery attempt.
  • A forensic document analyst for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, John W. Cawley, III, was hired by the government.
  • Cawley compared hand printing exemplars provided by Saelee with the hand printing on the address labels of the packages containing the opium.
  • Cawley concluded that Saelee was the writer of one of the address labels and was probably the writer of another.

Procedural Posture:

  • Chan Ian Saelee was indicted by the Government in the United States District Court.
  • The Government gave notice of its intent to introduce testimony from a forensic document analyst, John W. Cawley, III.
  • The defendant, Saelee, filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude all testimony by Mr. Cawley.
  • The Government first proposed that Mr. Cawley would testify to his ultimate conclusion about authorship, but later amended its proposal to limit his testimony to only the similarities and differences between the writings.
  • The district court scheduled and conducted a Daubert hearing to determine the admissibility of the proposed expert testimony.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a forensic document analyst's proposed testimony comparing a defendant's known handwriting with questioned documents admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 when the government fails to establish the reliability of the analyst's methods under the Daubert standard?


Opinions:

Majority - Holland, District Judge

No. A forensic document analyst's testimony comparing handwriting is not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 where the government fails to establish its reliability. First, the proposed testimony cannot be admitted as lay opinion under Rule 701 because it is based on technical and specialized knowledge, which falls squarely within the scope of Rule 702. Second, applying the reliability factors from Daubert and Kumho, the court found the field of handwriting analysis deficient. The government failed to show: (1) that the fundamental premises of handwriting analysis have been empirically tested; (2) that the field is subject to meaningful peer review by disinterested parties; (3) a known or acceptably low rate of error, with studies suggesting experts are not consistently better than laypersons; and (4) the existence of controlling standards to guide the analysis, rendering the process highly subjective. Because the government failed to meet its burden of proving the reliability of the proffered expert testimony, it is inadmissible as it is as likely to mislead the jury as to assist it.



Analysis:

This decision represents a significant application of the Daubert/Kumho gatekeeping function to a long-accepted area of forensic science. By rigorously scrutinizing handwriting analysis and finding it lacking in scientific reliability, the court challenged the historical deference given to such expert testimony. This ruling signals that even non-scientific or 'soft' expert evidence must withstand a thorough reliability analysis to be admissible. It pushes proponents of such evidence to develop and present empirical data supporting their field, potentially impacting the admissibility of other forensic disciplines that rely heavily on subjective comparison and experience rather than validated scientific methods.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States of America v. Chan Ian Saelee (2001) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Chan Ian Saelee