LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Legally, handwriting is considered behavior in public as indicated by the US Supreme Court decision, United States v. Marat (1973). Writing is a physical characteristic that is repeatedly shown in public. Therefore, handwriting analysis is protected from the Fourth Amendment's individual's privacy conditions as indicated by the US Supreme Court decision, United States v. Dionisio (1973). Commenting on publicly observed behavior is not an invasion of privacy as indicated by the US Supreme Court decision, United States v. Rosinsky (1977). The protection of the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination privilege does not apply under these circumstances as indicated by the US Supreme Court decision, Gilbert v. California (1967). Ethically, the ability to analyze a person's writing without their knowledge violates their right to privacy. In the practice of graphology and as a legal precaution always obtain the writer's and, if applicable, the writer's doctor/psychologist's permission. Always state the analysis is an opinion. Personality assessment utilizing graphology is inadmissible in the Courts as indicated by the New York Supreme Court decision, Cameron v. Knapp (1987). But, a behavior profile obtained using the technical skill of a graphologist is admissible in the Courts as indicated by the US District (Criminal) Court, MA Docket No. 93-10291 (1995). Personality assessment by other methods is legally admissible by obtaining general psychological consensus for test validity. Presently, graphology does not have legally defined consensus among psychologists and among graphologists as indicated in the Carroll v. State (1982) decision. Additionally the US Supreme Court, Daubert v. Merrill Dow Chemical (1993), decided that it is the Court's responsibility for determining who qualifies as an expert witness. And in effect disqualities all handwriting analysts for lack of scientific evidence as recommended by the Court. Graphology is not supported by hypothesis testing, peer review of scientific publications, established error rates, approved methodologies and peer group acceptance. However, many critics believe that no personality test has adequately, accurately, or scientifically proven validity in predicting human behavior or actions especially the complex traits of dishonesty and integrity. The detailed knowledge of available character traits cannot with 100 percent certainty predict its application. Behavior is determined by trait combinations, the graphic indicators, and is situation specific; a particular situation can alter the response. For example, the underlying traits or situation that characterize suicide or financial success cannot be clearly and accurately defined. Graphologists have not demonstrated acceptable correlated validity using matching studies (judges matching behavior), using sorting studies (experts sorting into two categories), using rating studies (judges quantitatively ranking character traits), and/or using experimental studies (graphic indicators correlating quantitatively to personality traits). Studies that contain a large quantity of inter-relative and random variables and do not contain strongly contrasting characteristics will yield insignificant statistical correlation. The burden of proof for validity must fall on the handwriting analyst for generating the carefully designed and controlled experiment. Graphologists, scriptologists, grapho analysts, graphonomists and handwriting analysts usually offer lame-brained excuses for the negative experimental results that further damages legal validity. Unfortunately, statistical correlation that support validations are not sufficient by themselves to prove causality without additional verification. Though handwriting speed, simplicity, line space, i-dot placement, and the figure eight for the letter g have experimentally correlated to intelligence, these traits are not sufficient to predict intelligence. The use of graphology to predict personality performance such as in employment and marriage is legally risky and unsupportable in the courts.