## Facts

- The United States charged Johanna Hines with bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 for a January 27, 1997 robbery of Broadway National Bank in Chelsea, Massachusetts.
- The prosecution’s core proof included (1) a teller’s eyewitness identification and (2) a robbery demand note offered to be linked to Hines through handwriting comparison.
- The government proposed an FBI document examiner to opine that Hines wrote the note.
- Hines moved to exclude the government’s handwriting expert, arguing handwriting “individualization” lacked adequate reliability under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert/Kumho framework.
- Hines sought to call a defense expert to critique the methodology and limits of handwriting comparison.
- Hines also sought to call a psychologist to testify about empirically studied factors affecting eyewitness identification accuracy (including cross-racial identification, stress, time delay, and suggestive procedures).
- The government opposed the defense experts and sought leave to present rebuttal experts if the defense testimony were admitted.
- The court addressed these matters on pretrial motions governing admissibility and scope of expert testimony.

## Issues

1. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert/Kumho, may a handwriting examiner testify that the defendant authored a questioned document, and what limits, if any, must be imposed on the strength and form of that opinion?
2. Is a defense expert critique of handwriting-comparison methodology admissible to assist the jury in evaluating the government’s handwriting testimony?
3. Is expert testimony on psychological research concerning eyewitness identification reliability admissible where identification is central, and how should it be limited to avoid substituting for the jury?

## Decision

- The court treated handwriting comparison and eyewitness-identification psychology as “technical” or otherwise specialized knowledge subject to the Rule 702 reliability and relevance gatekeeping requirement.
- The court admitted the government’s handwriting expert only in a limited form: the expert could describe observed similarities and differences between known writings and the robbery note but could not present a strongly conclusive, categorical authorship opinion.
- The court admitted the defense handwriting-critique expert to explain methodological weaknesses and reliability limits in handwriting comparison to aid the jury’s evaluation of the government’s proof.
- The court admitted the defense eyewitness-identification expert to testify about general research-based factors affecting identification accuracy (including cross-racial effects, stress, time, and suggestiveness), while barring case-specific credibility determinations about the particular witness.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as construed by Daubert and Kumho Tire, applies to scientific, technical, and other specialized expert testimony; the trial judge must assess reliability and fit.
- A court may calibrate admissibility by limiting an expert’s conclusions to those supported by the method’s demonstrated reliability, rather than choosing only between full admission and total exclusion.
- Forensic handwriting testimony may be restricted to descriptive comparison (similarities/differences) when the record does not support strong claims of unique authorship identification.
- Expert testimony critiquing the reliability and methodology of a forensic discipline may be admissible when it assists jurors in evaluating the weight and limits of the opposing expert’s conclusions.
- Expert testimony on eyewitness-identification psychology is admissible when grounded in empirical research and directed to general factors that jurors may not reliably assess unaided; it must not opine on whether a specific witness is correct.

## Conclusion

The court applied Rule 702’s reliability gatekeeping to both longstanding forensic handwriting comparison and eyewitness-identification psychology, allowing expert assistance where helpful but restricting overstatement: it limited the prosecution’s handwriting expert to non-categorical comparison testimony and permitted defense experts to challenge handwriting methodology and to explain research-based factors affecting eyewitness reliability.


United States v. Hines, 55 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Mass. 1999)