There is no rule of law fixing the precise amount of experience or
degree of skill necessary to constitute a handwriting expert. The
witness need not be engaged in any particular business or claim to be
a professional expert. He must, however, claim to have experience.
With that limitation, cashiers, paying tellers, other bank officers,
attorneys, bookkeepers, business men, conveyancers, county officials,
photographers, treasurers and clerks of railroads, etc., and writing
teachers have in various cases been held competent to testify as an
expert. And it has been held that experience with handwriting
generally or specially will enable the witness to testify specially or
generally thereto. Bank officials, and especially cashiers, tellers,
and book-keepers, are usually regarded as competent by most courts to
pass authoritatively upon handwriting.
Generally speaking, the witness must claim to be an expert, or at
least show that he had the means of gaining experience. He need not
claim to be an expert, but he must claim to have had such experience
as will make him feel competent to express an opinion.
He may always give the reasons for his opinion, but he must confine
his testimony to his opinion based on the handwriting itself, and not
as affected by the facts of the case. He cannot state any inferences
deduced from the facts. He must also testify himself. Evidence of what
an expert has said with reference to a writing is inadmissible for the
purpose of bringing that opinion before the court.
An expert may be tested with other papers in the case, but not with
irrelevant papers, and the whole of the test paper must be shown him.
He is entitled to see it all.
Letter-press copies and duplicates made by writing machines are not
originals and therefore cannot be used as a standard of comparison.
An expert cannot give an opinion as to the genuineness of a signature
based upon a comparison thereof with signatures not before the court.
The standard of comparison used by the expert must be produced in
court. Photographic copies are admissible when accompanied by the
originals. When original writings are in evidence and the genuineness
thereof disputed, magnified photographic copies of the writing and of
admitted genuine writings are admissible in evidence, for comparison
by jury or expert when accompanied by competent preliminary proof that
the copies are accurate in all respects except as to size and color.
The services of the expert are required in a wide range of civil and
criminal cases. Where handwriting is questioned on notes, checks,
drafts, receipts, wills, deeds, mortgages, bonds, anonymous letters,
money orders, registered letter receipts, letters, pension papers, and
in smuggling, and in short, on any kind of document where it becomes
necessary to establish the identity of the writer, the expert is
called in. Life, liberty, honor, and property are frequently balanced
on a pen point--a few marks of the pen being the determining feature
of many a case.
The handwriting of the schoolboy and schoolgirl, though crude, is
conventional and idealized. It has but few characteristics so long as
the school model or copy-book hand is the goal. The pupil gives
constant attention to the handwriting as well as to the thought. A
number of students of about the same grade, under the same teacher,
will write much alike. Fifteen or twenty of these students could each
write a line on a page and it might baffle a layman, and perhaps
puzzle an expert, to tell whether or not more than one person wrote
the page. This constant striving after one ideal, and putting thought
on the handwriting, had drawn them all toward that ideal and away from
The employment of professional handwriting experts as witnesses in
court cases that often involve enormous sums of money, or the liberty
or even the lives of suspected malefactors, has awakened widespread
interest in the methods of this class of experts, their resources and
capabilities in conserving the ends of justice.
Many uninformed people appear to look on the handwriting expert as one
who, by intuition or the possession of some mysterious occult power,
is enabled to distinguish at a glance the true and the spurious in any
questioned handwriting. Nothing could be further from the fact.
The secret of his power--as in any other line of scientific
research--lies wholly in his intimate familiarity with the innumerable
physical details which comprise the written line or word or
letter--sometimes so slight a matter as the dotting of an _i_ or the
placing of a comma. It is precisely the same specialized sense, born
of acute observation and minute scrutiny that enables an expert
chemist to take two powders of like weight and color, identical in
appearance to the common eye and perhaps in taste to the common
palate, and say: This drug is harmless, wholesome; that is a deadly
poison--and to specify not only their various individual constituents
but the exact proportion of each. The trained eye of the handwriting
expert (as in another case could that of the expert chemist) can often
detect at a glance certain distinguishing earmarks of submitted
writing that enable him to fix the identity of the writer almost
off-hand. In the the great majority of cases, however, the cunning of
the forger calls for deliberate, painstaking study and investigation
before the conscientious expert is willing to announce with absolute
surety an opinion so often fraught with tremendous possibilities for
good or for evil.
Nothing else that a person does is so characteristic as the
handwriting, and the identification of the individual can be
established by it better than by portraits or almost any other means.
As lawyers and laymen and courts are finding this out, the handwriting
expert is more and more called upon to untangle snarled questions and
to right wrongs.
It is only when attention is directed to this interesting science by
the wide publicity given to some great case in which handwriting plays
an important part that the notice of the general public is drawn to
it. The average person would be surprised to know of the great number
of cases that find their way to the office of the handwriting expert.
The man who has made a success in this line is constantly in demand,
and makes frequent trips to distant points to appear as witness in
Though nearly every large town has some one who devotes some attention
to handwriting, there are but five or six men in this country who give
to it practically all of their time, and who have gone very deeply
into the subject.
To allow any person to qualify as an "expert" and to testify as such
is a matter wholly within the discretion of the court. Unfortunately,
courts frequently are lax in determining this question. Almost any one
who can write is permitted to give alleged "expert" testimony
regarding handwriting. In one well-known case, a case, too, involving
life and death--the court unwittingly accepted the "expert" testimony
of a witness who, it was afterward proven, was unable to write even so
much as his own name. In the litigation attending the disposal of
large mining interests held at Butte, Montana, the court permitted
testimony in regard to the handwriting of the testator from a witness
who admitted that he had seen the testator write but once, and that in
lead pencil over twenty years before.
Any one accustomed to writing is usually allowed to qualify as an
"expert." To the lay mind it is natural to confound experts who have
studied the subject deeply in all its various phases with those who
have had occasion to examine it casually, or who may possess uncommon
facility with the pen without ever having had occasion to investigate
scientifically just those little illusive points upon which the
professional expert places his reliance.
Hence, when we read of "experts" being mistaken, or of an equal number
of them appearing on opposite sides of the same case, it will nearly
always be found upon investigation that they are of the class
described above, whose lack of thorough special training and
specialized experience really should have disqualified them from
giving testimony. Though any one may call himself an "expert," or a
"professional expert," for that matter, thus opening the door to
charlatanism in exactly the same manner that it is opened more or less
in all vocations, yet, as a matter of fact, it is very rare that
professional handwriting experts testify to a contrary state of facts,
and the cases in which they have been proven mistaken are remarkably
Experts who have a natural aptitude coupled with experience that
produces skill are able, by a system which they have reduced to a
science, to detect the spurious from the genuine handwriting with
almost unvarying success. But their conclusions are not reached by
second sight or sleight-of-hand methods, but rather by painstaking,
Some of the principal tests applied to determine the genuineness of
handwriting are these: The actual and relative slant of the letters or
the angles between their stems and the base; the constancy and
accuracy with which a straight line is followed as a base; the amount
of pressure used on the pen and the part of the stroke where it is
applied, and the positions of the line as a whole relative to the
edges of the paper. The simplest punctuation mark under the microscope
has its own individuality. It would be difficult to find two writers
whose semicolons and quotation marks cannot be distinguished at a
glance. The dotting of the _i_ and crossing of the _t_ afford an
infinite number of relations between points and lines, and in both of
these the time element and the freedom of muscular movement play
important parts. Even the health and self-control of the penman, as
well as the physical circumstances, show their influence on these
The identification of the individual by means of his handwriting is of
great value in legal trials and outside of courts. Its use cannot be
dispensed with any more than can the knowledge obtained in any other
line of science.
One often hears a man boast of his ability to successfully duplicate
another person's signature or handwriting, and to the casual observer
the counterfeit really will bear a striking resemblance to the
original. However, let the two be placed in the hands of an expert on
disputed handwriting and he will pretty quickly determine which is the
original and which the forgery. Furthermore, he will tell you what
process was used to make the duplicate, for there are several methods
in use among forgers, and can even tell the composition of the ink.
In the determination of any handwriting there is no actual rule to
guide an expert, as each case must be a law unto itself. The time of
day that the signature was made and the condition for the moment of
the individual have considerable bearing on the case, as has also the
writer's general physical condition. Whether he was standing or
sitting when the signature was made is a matter of importance. The
quality of the paper and the make of the pen also have to be taken
into consideration. In the case of forgery, where the forger has
employed a finger movement writing with the muscles and apparently
without education, there is scarcely any difficulty in arriving at a
conclusion. The long flowing hand is easy to detect. When, however,
the writing is finical a large mass of material has to be examined
before a decision can be reached.
The testimony of an expert is without doubt the most dangerous kind of
evidence when not supported by additional testimony; but, on the other
hand, if the known facts fit in well, it is the strongest kind of
testimony that can be submitted, and is usually known as "opinioned
evidence." There probably is no class of professional witnesses which
is subjected to such severe cross-examination as experts in
handwriting, and, considering the great importance of their testimony,
they should be ever ready and willing to explain the methods employed
by them in arriving at their decision, which, of course, is the result
of a comparison of the analyses of several pieces of writing, taking
account of all exaggerations, idiosyncrasies and unusual
All evidence of handwriting, except where the witness has seen the
writing in question written, is derived from four sources: First, from
comparison; second, from the internal evidence of the writing itself;
third, from the knowledge of the writing, from having frequently seen
a person write; fourth, where one has received letters whose
authorship has been subsequently verified by admission, or acted upon
in such manner as to receive the approval of the writer. Comparison is
made between the writing in question and other writing admitted by the
writer to be genuine, or otherwise proved to be so to the satisfaction
of the court.
The evidence adduced from comparison is more or less certain according
to the skill of the expert and the circumstances of the case. Internal
evidence is such as is presented by the peculiar quality of lines when
drawn or worked up by slowly following traced lines, retouched shades,
rubbered surface of the paper, and every indication of an artificial
or mechanical process of producing writing.
Testimony based upon a knowledge of writing gained from having at some
time seen a person write is the most fallacious of all testimony
respecting handwriting; it can be only a mental comparison of writing
in question with such a vague idea or mental picture as may remain
from a casual view of the writing at some time more or less remote;
and besides, one may perceive another in the act of writing and yet
have little or no opportunity of forming any mental conception of it,
even at the time of writing.
In some cases where the courts will permit it the expert witness may
fully explain upon what he bases his opinion but it oftener occurs that
the trial judge will limit the evidence down to the very narrow scope
and the mere relation of such facts as the jury can see. Where a
forgery is well executed the difference in general appearance between
it and the genuine writing of the person whose signature is questioned,
when compared, is very small. The limit put upon expert evidence by the
trial judge takes from the effect of the testimony all the benefit of
an explanation of the facts upon which the opinion is founded.
Juries are generally allowed to examine enlarged photographs of the
writing, and sometimes to see it under the microscope, but even when
so doing what they see unexplained cannot be appreciated intelligently
and unless taken for granted as meaning something which the experience
of the expert who gives the opinion understands, and which they
without such an education, could not be expected to understand that
which the photographs show and the microscope makes visible is just as
likely to be misleading as otherwise.
An expert may testify as to the characteristics of the handwriting in
question; as to whether the writing is natural or feigned, or was or
was not written at the same time, with the same pen and ink, and by
the same person, and as to alterations or erasures therein; and as to
the age of the writing and obscurities therein; the result of his
examination of the writing under a magnifying glass; and to prove in
some cases the standard of comparison.
In the United States a witness may be asked to write on cross-examination,
but not in direct.
Before a paper can be accepted as a standard of comparison it must be
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. His decision on
this question is final if supported by proper evidence. In some states
the question of genuineness is for the jury.
A party denying his handwriting may be asked on cross-examination, if
his signature to another instrument is genuine. This is the test which
may be successfully applied to ascertain if the signature is genuine.
A plaintiff, on one occasion, denied most positively that a receipt
produced was in his handwriting. It was thus worded, "Received the
Hole of the above." On being asked to write a sentence in which the
word "whole" was introduced, he took evident pains to disguise his
handwriting, but he adopted the phonetic style of spelling, and also
persisted in using the capital _H_.
The practice of thus testing a witness is vindicated by one of the
most sagacious of German jurists, Mittermaier, on grounds not only of
expediency, but of authority.
Comparison of handwriting, either by jury or witness, is uniformly
allowed to prove writings which are not old enough to prove
themselves, but are too old to admit of direct proof of their
Handwriting, considered under the law of evidence, includes not only
the ordinary writing of one able to write, but also writing done in a
disguised hand, or in cipher, and a mark made by one able or unable to
The principles regulating the proof of handwriting apply equally to
civil and criminal cases.
The paper the handwriting of which is sought to be proved by experts
must ordinarily be produced in court, but such production will be
excused when the paper has been lost or destroyed and when it is a
public record, which cannot be brought into court.
Genuineness may be proved in all cases, except where paper is required
to be identified by an official seal, and except as controlled by law
applicable to attested instruments.
It may be proved by his own admissions; by witnesses who saw the party
write; by witnesses who corresponded with the party; by witnesses who
had seen papers acknowledged by the party; by witnesses having
personal relations with the party.
Comparison of handwriting, technically called _presumptio ex scripto
nunv viso_, is where a paper or papers are proved or admitted to be in
a party's handwriting, and a witness entirely unacquainted with the
party's handwriting, or the jury, is allowed to make a comparison by
juxtaposition of the writing so proved or admitted, and the writing
All evidence of handwriting, except where the witness sees the
documents written, is in its nature comparison. It is the belief which
a witness entertains upon comparing the writing in question with an
exemplar in his mind derived from some previous writing.
In all the states of the Union the laws are uniform on the proposition
that experts may testify as to comparisons made and the results based
on such comparisons, except that the paper admitted to be genuine
shall not contain matter of a frivolous nature, etc.
In a broad, general way the element of common sense is the basework of
an expert's success in the business. He cannot depend upon anything
suggesting intuition. Where two signatures or two specimens of writing
are in question and one exhibit is a forgery and the other is genuine,
or where both are genuine, yet in question, the expert is in the
position of making his proofs and demonstrations convincing to the
layman--the hard headed citizen who insists that "you show me."
Frequently this citizen is on a jury where he has had to admit that he
is not particularly intelligent before he would be accepted for the
As a first proposition to such a man, however, the expert in
chirography may put him to the proof that out of a dozen signatures of
his own name no two will be alike in general form. Then he may turn to
the authentic and forged signatures in almost any case and show to the
layman that the first question of forgery arose from the fact that
these two signatures at a first glance are identically alike to almost
the minutest detail. With all the skill which the forger has put into
his crooked work, he keeps to the old principle of copying the
authentic signature which he has in hand, and the more nearly he can
reproduce this signature in every proportion the more readily the
forgery can be proved.
One of the most important facts from which the expert may begin his
investigations of possible forgery is that every man using a pen in
writing has his "pen scope." This technical term describes the average
stretch of paper which a man may cover without lifting the pen from
the paper and shifting his hand to continue the line. In even the
freest, swinging movements of a pen where the hand follows the pen
fingers, there are occasional breaks in the lettering or undue stretch
of space between the words which will indicate a characteristic scope
of the pen if the specimens under investigation cover an ordinary
paragraph in length.
As applied to the signatures of the ordinary individual, this pen
scope will appear in some form in the signature. The writer may lift
his pen before he has spelled out a long Christian or surname, he may
indicate it in the placing of a middle initial or in the space which
lies between the initial and the last name. In the case of the
signature of one's name, too, it should be one of the easiest and
lest-studied group of words which he is called on to put upon paper.
In writing a letter, for example, the pen scope through it may show an
average stretch of one inch for the text of the letter, while in the
signature the whole length of the signature twice as long, may be
covered. But if the writer covers this full stretch of his name in
this way the expert may prove by the necessary short pen scope of the
copyist that the studied copy is a forgery on its face. For however
free of pen stroke the forger may be naturally, his attempts to
produce a facsimile of the signature shortens it beyond the scope of
the original signer.
If a search be made through a series of undisputedly genuine
signatures, it will be found that one characteristic fails in one and
another in another. Here is where the handwriting expert makes his
service valuable. He studies all these important points, and is not
long in arriving at a successful conclusion.
The introduction of the experimental method into all modern
investigation has led to the hope that in this difficult subject means
will be found to introduce simpler forms of determining regular or
As long as the steps by which experts reach their conclusions are so
intricate or recondite that only the results may be stated to the
jury, just so long will the character of expert testimony suffer in
the opinion of the public, and the insulting charge against it be
repeated that any side can hire an expert to support its case.
If a single competent expert could be selected by the court to take up
questions of this kind and lay his results before it, the present
system would be less objectionable than it is. Nevertheless, this
solution is probably not the best, because no man is capable of always
observing and judging correctly, and the most careful man may be led
astray by elements in the problem before him of which he does not
suspect the existence. It would seem, therefore, to be fairer and less
open to objection if a plan of investigation were followed which can
be clearly explained to those who are to decide a case and the
resulting data left in their hands to assist them in their decision.
In such a manner of presentation, if any important data have been
omitted, or if the premises do not warrant the conclusion, the errors
can be detected without accusing the expert of lack of good faith or
ignorance of his subject. The fact that he has testified in hundreds
of cases and in every court in the world should not be allowed to
influence the jury against a logical conclusion drawn from