Title

Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Handwriting Testimony of Dr. Bouffard

Authors

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Marilyn B. Cassidy, Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutor

Document Type

Davis v. State of Ohio, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CV96-312322

Date

2000-01-05

Box Number

43A

Item Number

91

Keywords

state's filing, opposition, motion in limine, handwriting, Dr. Philip Bouffard, expert witness, Evid.R. 702

Abstract

The State argues that handwriting analysis is a field of expertise within the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 under the Daubert standard. Accordingly, it concludes that there is no legal basis upon which to exclude the testimony of Dr. Philip Bouffard since the Daubert decision was intended to relax--not restrict--admissibility requirements.

Comments

See Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Pertaining to Handwriting Analysis

See order denying this motion.

Recommended Citation

Mason, William D. and Cassidy, Marilyn B., "Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Handwriting Testimony of Dr. Bouffard" (2000). 1995-2002 Court Filings. 81.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/sheppard_court_filings_2000/81