Faith Hedgepeth Murder Trial: Judge Lets Jurors Compare Handwriting to the Writing on the Bag

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: We've had access to handwriting experts, FBI, none of that's before this jury, and now, one, I see a photograph. I don't know who wrote the message in the photograph. [00:00:19] Speaker 2: Let me hear you on that. [00:00:22] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. The state anticipates admitting handwriting that the state would report, and I think that there's evidence to show, handwriting that was written by this defendant. In doing that, the case law is clear that that is a proper province for the jury to be able to look at and compare for themselves. There's no need for a lay opinion from anybody. There's no need for an expert opinion. However, to put forth a known exemplar of a defendant's writing with an unknown exemplar for a defendant's writing, the court has to make a preliminary determination that there is a sufficient similarity, and so I'm happy to do that. I don't anticipate that, frankly, coming in until later in the testimony, but I'm happy to do that now while the jury's already out, and I have two cases that show that the court has to make this preliminary determination. The first is State v. Owen. This is a 1998 case. It's 130 NC App, and the second is State v. Watson. This is a 2020 case, 271 NC App, 5, I'm showing my age. I can't see if that's an 8 or a 3. I think it's 583. That is an unpublished opinion, but essentially it's just a newer case that's adopting the older case. May I approach with that, John? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. You will see at the top of the second column, it says that it is a well-settled evidentiary principle that a jury may compare a known sample of a person's handwriting with the handwriting on a contested document without the aid of either expert or lay testimony. However, before the handwriting may be submitted to a jury for its comparison, the trial court must satisfy itself that there is enough similarity between the genuine handwriting and the disputed handwriting such that the jury could reasonably infer that disputed handwriting is also genuine. And therefore, before I put this up in front of the jury, I wanted to put your honor on notice of that so that you can make that preliminary determination if you are so inclined. [00:03:02] Speaker 4: And, Madam, as far as the documents that you would want the court to review, do you have those? [00:03:09] Speaker 3: I do, Your Honor. [00:03:11] Speaker 4: While you're approaching so incomplete disclosure, during our conference and chambers, the parties did show the court these examples. And so that parties aren't where I had a chance to look at these. And, Mr. Rainsford. [00:03:53] Speaker 3: Your Honor, may I say one thing before? So there are a few things that I wanted to point out. Sure. As to their distinctive characteristics, which is what your honor, according to the case, I should be looking at. One, these are all of these, including the writing on the bag. None of them are in cursive. They are all in block print handwriting. There is no mixed print cursive together where it's partially cursive. There's no lowercase. Every one of these are all in uppercase. And there are uniform sizes of the letters. It's not although some of the letters are smaller and some of them are bigger. They are all uniform, block, uppercase, with similar size writing in all of them. If you look at some of the individual letters, yes, there are some distinctions. However, there are also some distinct similarities between some of the particular letters. But I think that just to get over this hurdle, that the jury should be able to consider this. These two, along with what has been introduced in states 129 and 46, the writing on the bag, I think that there are sufficient similarities that this is evidence that should be put forth in front of the jury. Thank you. Thank you. [00:05:14] Speaker 4: Mr. Ringsner. [00:05:16] Speaker 3: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:05:16] Speaker 4: Yes, sir. [00:05:17] Speaker 1: And I know we've moved on, but I want the record clear. The certificates of accuracy or authenticity, those weren't signed until September 26th of 2026. And so that's not something we've had for – we couldn't have thought about that in August. We didn't get it until the 26th, which was a Saturday. As far as the handwriting samples go, I think that this is – they've investigated – the state's investigated this case for 14 years. They've had access to handwriting experts, FBI. None of that's before this jury. Now, one, I see a photograph. I don't know who wrote the message in the photograph. I don't see any foundation as to – and it's the one with the pesos in it. I don't know if we've marked the – are these marked as exhibits? [00:06:20] Speaker 4: They're not marked yet as exhibits. They're just during this – they're showing this to me, but I have not asked them to mark them yet. [00:06:27] Speaker 1: Yes, Your Honor. I just want to make sure you and I were – I wasn't confusing, jumping around between the pieces of paper. I'm keeping up. No, the one with the pesos, there's no foundation for who even – who wrote that. I haven't heard anything. The jail call – I want that video. The video call where the still image is from, we're asking that the video call be played to the jury in its entirety. So I don't have a problem with that piece of evidence coming in. Now, Your Honor, making a preliminary assessment, allowing an argument for the, you know, the state to say, you know, my client must have written some bag. I've already been told in a pretrial order, I can't make arguments about Ms. Rosario having written on the bag, even though I think in the evidence that's been admitted into this case, her written statement, there are similarities in her own written statement. But as far as the picture with the pesos on it, I don't see any foundation for who wrote that. I don't know when, how, when this photograph was taken, any of those things. And so for the video call, I think it's a little bit different, but for this still image, I don't have anything to go with that. I don't have anything surrounding it in which to make the analysis. And so I think that would be unduly prejudicial. I think there's a lack of foundation. I think it calls for speculation. The video call, again, I'm, I'm pushing for that video call to be entered into evidence. And so we have less to speak there. I mean, I think the jury should get to see what was written so long as they see the video call. [00:08:04] Speaker ?: All right. [00:08:05] Speaker 4: Well, I do have one question, Madam Gaye, in reference to the picture that has the, the ballot, but the money with the note. Is the state, who's the state going to contend as the author of this picture, of this handwriting? [00:08:20] Speaker 3: Your Honor, I think that that, that's kind of the point of this, is because this is an unknown exemplar that the state intends to argue he wrote was on his computer. And the jury should be allowed to compare those to figure out, did he invite to write this? [00:08:35] Speaker 4: All right. All right. The court is going to indicate, under the case that's been presented, that state versus Owen that was authored by Judge Wynn, the court is allowed to look at this exhibit, which will be, which will become an exhibit, to determine whether or not there's similarity between these. Now, the court is not a handwriting expert, but this case doesn't indicate that I have to be. Simply, I can note that it does appear to be block print. It does appear that it's not in cursive. It does appear that both of these are, all the letters are in uppercase. I agree also, they are uniform size. Therefore, I do believe there is enough for a jury to look at here to make the determination whether or not they believe there's similarity. They just simply, I just simply have to decide whether or not I believe there's enough to go back so they can look at that. And I, as I said, I'm not a handwriting expert, but I'm not required to be. And I do think there's enough here that there's similarity between these writings that a jury can then make the determination whether or not they believe there's similarity. And then they can make the determination as to whether or not they believe the defendant is the author of these. So, I'm going to allow that. I'll note the defense's objection.