United States v. Starzecpyzel

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1995 · Evidence

880 F. Supp. 1027 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceExpert testimonyRule 702Rule 403DaubertHandwriting analysisFed. R. Evid. 702Fed. R. Evid. 403

Facts

Defendants were charged with crimes arising from the alleged theft and sale of artwork and other valuables belonging to Ethel Brownstone. The government sought to use testimony from forensic document examiner Gus Lesnevich, who concluded that Brownstone's signatures on two documents dated June 3, 1985 and March 11, 1986 were not genuine. Defendants argued that forensic document examination had not been validated as credible scientific or technical knowledge under Daubert and alternatively requested a Daubert hearing. At the hearing, the government presented Mary Wenderoth Kelly, and defendants presented Professors George Stelmach and Michael Saks, whose testimony challenged the scientific basis and validation of forensic document examination.

Issue

Whether testimony by a forensic document examiner comparing genuine signatures to questioned signatures is admissible under Rule 702 after Daubert. More specifically, the court had to decide whether such testimony is scientific knowledge governed by Daubert, or instead technical or specialized skilled knowledge admissible under Rule 702 subject to Rule 403 safeguards.

Rule

Under Rule 702, Daubert's scientific reliability framework governs expert testimony only when the proffered knowledge is scientific in character. Nonscientific expert testimony based on technical or other specialized practical skill may be admitted if the witness is qualified, the knowledge will assist the trier of fact, and the court finds sufficient indicia of reliability under its gatekeeping role; even then, the testimony may be limited or accompanied by safeguards under Rule 403 to reduce unfair prejudice or misleading scientific aura.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal fraud trial in Chicago, the prosecution offers Nora Velez, a veteran insurance-claims analyst, to testify that a series of repair invoices were likely fabricated. Velez has spent 18 years reviewing thousands of claims and apprenticed under senior investigators, but she cannot identify any peer-reviewed studies validating her methods or any published error rates.

How should the judge most likely analyze the admissibility of Velez's testimony?

Explanation. The majority opinion first asks whether the proffered expertise is scientific or instead technical/specialized practical skill. Where the witness's know-how is practical, acquired through training, apprenticeship, and experience rather than scientific methodology, Daubert's scientific framework is not controlling. But the court still must perform gatekeeping under Rules 702 and 104(a), asking whether the witness is qualified, the testimony will assist the trier of fact, and there are sufficient indicia of reliability.