|
|
 |
Supreme Court Decisions
Concerning Handwriting Analysis (Graphology)
- Excerpt of letter from Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
Washington, D.C., 20606:
“Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, Graphoanalysis or any other employee selection procedure
may be used, as long as such procedure has no adverse impact on
a particular group of applicants.”
- In United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 41 LW 4185 (1973), the
Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment is not violated by
a compelled production of ‘physical characteristics’
that are constantly exposed to the public. The Court stated: “Handwriting,
like speech, is repeatedly shown to the public and there is no
more expectation of privacy in the physical characteristics of
a person’s script than there is in the tone of his voice.”
- In United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 41 LW 4180 (1973),
the Supreme Court held that the physical characteristics of a
person’s voice or handwriting or facial characteristics,
being constantly exposed to the public view, are not within the
protection of the Fourth Amendment.
- In Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), the Supreme Court
held that the compelled production of handwriting exemplars does
not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Moreover, the Court stated: “A mere handwriting exemplar,
in contrast to the content of what is written, like the words
or body itself, is an identifying characteristic outside (Fifth
Amendment) protection.”
- In United States v. Sydney W. Rosinsky, FR. P249, F2d No. 2, March
7, 1977, the Court held that “handwriting is behavior in public
– no intrusion into privacy.”
Graphology has also been used in other court cases, with skilled graphologists
providing expert testimony at the municipal, state and Supreme Court
levels. |
|
