## Facts

- Alan N. Scott, a former paralegal, engaged in multiple identity- and document-based fraud schemes in the late 1990s, leading to three federal criminal cases in Massachusetts that were consolidated on appeal.
- In the 1997 case, Scott took checks from a Boston law firm, forged endorsements, and deposited the checks into Texas bank accounts; he was charged with bank fraud and possessing/making forged checks and entered a conditional guilty plea preserving certain appellate issues.
- In the 1998 case, Scott filed twenty false 1996 income tax returns seeking refunds in the names of at least twelve people, using co-conspirators; the intended loss exceeded $80,000; he was convicted of conspiracy to make false claims and making false claims.
- A key trial issue in the 1998 case was identification of Scott’s handwriting by IRS Agent James Donahue, who had investigated Scott for years and reviewed many samples of Scott’s writing (letters, pleadings, signature cards, money orders, and tax-related documents) and had seen Scott sign once.
- In the 1999 case, Scott faced additional charges arising from further tax- and identity-related conduct; he was convicted and sentenced.
- Across the cases, the district court imposed concurrent prison terms (including 96 months and 60 months in the 1998 case) and ordered restitution, including $1,381.00 (1997 case) and $37,970.68 (1998 case).

## Issues

1. Whether an investigating agent’s non-expert opinion identifying a defendant’s handwriting is admissible as lay opinion and authentication, where familiarity arose during a criminal investigation.
2. Whether the foundation for lay handwriting identification was sufficient given the agent’s exposure to multiple exemplars but only one direct observation of the defendant signing.
3. Whether venue in Massachusetts was proper for the 1997 bank-fraud and forged-check charges involving deposits in Texas, and whether related suppression arguments had merit.
4. Whether the district court erred in restitution and sentencing determinations across the consolidated cases.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed Scott’s convictions in all three cases.
- The court upheld admission of Agent Donahue’s lay handwriting-identification testimony.
- The court rejected Scott’s venue challenge and affirmed denial of suppression in the 1997 case.
- The court affirmed the sentences (including concurrent terms) and upheld the restitution orders, including $1,381.00 and $37,970.68.

## Legal Principles

- A non-expert witness may authenticate handwriting through opinion testimony if the witness has familiarity with the handwriting that was not acquired solely for purposes of litigation, consistent with Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(2).
- An investigating law-enforcement agent may qualify as a lay handwriting witness when familiarity is based on sustained exposure to the defendant’s writings during an investigation and an adequate foundation is established.
- Objections that an agent’s familiarity is limited (e.g., few direct observations of writing) generally go to weight and credibility for the jury, not admissibility, when the foundational showing is sufficient and the witness is subject to cross-examination.
- Venue is proper where an offense was begun, continued, or completed; conduct occurring in the forum district can support venue even if other acts occurred elsewhere.
- Restitution and guideline sentencing determinations are upheld absent legal error or abuse of discretion, including loss calculations and concurrent sentencing structures authorized by statute and the Guidelines.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld Scott’s multiple fraud convictions, concluding that lay handwriting identification by an investigating IRS agent was properly admitted with an adequate foundation under Rule 901(b)(2), that venue in Massachusetts was proper for the bank-fraud prosecution, and that the sentences and restitution orders were lawfully imposed.


United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2001)