United States v. Paul
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
175 F.3d 906 (1999)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Sunonda Paul (defendant) was charged with extortion in connection with an attempt to rob a bank. The bank received an anonymous, handwritten note, directing it to leave $100,000 in a briefcase in a nearby McDonald’s bathroom. When the bank received the note, it alerted the FBI which stationed agents at the McDonald’s and witnessed Paul pick up the briefcase and attempt to leave. After Paul was arrested, Paul gave handwriting samples to the FBI. Larry Ziegler, an FBI document examiner, determined that Paul’s samples matched the note left at the bank. In his samples, Paul had misspelled “restaurant” and the bank manager’s name in the same way that they were misspelled on the note left at the bank. The district court denied Paul’s motion to exclude Ziegler’s testimony. Paul sought to counter Ziegler’s testimony by calling Mark Denbeaux, a law professor who taught evidence, to rebut Ziegler’s claims that the handwritings matched. The district court granted the prosecution’s motion to exclude this testimony. The jury convicted Paul. He appealed on the grounds that (1) Ziegler’s testimony did not assist the jury, (2) Ziegler’s testimony was more prejudicial than probative because the jury believed that Ziegler’s analysis was scientific when it was not, and (3) Denbeaux’s testimony should have been admitted as expert testimony.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hatchett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
