Some of Ada’s signatures appeared forged

The defense’s Los Angeles, California-based forensic document examiner Beth Chrisman continued yesterday her testimony in the ongoing jury trial of Leyda I. Ada, who is accused of conspiring with her husband, Melvin, to perpetrate healthcare fraud exceeding $1.7 million.

Defense attorney Mark Hanson, the court-appointed counsel for Ada, called to the witness stand on Wednesday their first witness—Reghischem R. Ichihara, cousin of Ada.

After Ichihara, the defense counsel called Chrisman to the witness stand. Chrisman resumed her testimony yesterday morning.

Hanson, court-appointed counsel for Ada, started calling witnesses on Wednesday after the U.S. government rested its case.

Chrisman completed her testimony yesterday afternoon. The trial will resume on Monday at 10am. The defense is expected to call two more witnesses.

The parties’ lawyers are going to hold a jury instructions conference today, Friday, at 11am.

The prosecution called to the witness stand Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent Edmund Ewing as its 31st and last witness on Tuesday afternoon.

After the prosecution rested, outside the presence of the jury, Hanson moved for judgment of acquittal as to all charges—conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and perjury. Assistant U.S. attorney Garth Backe opposed the motion.

After hearing the arguments, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona denied the motion. She ruled that the prosecution had sufficiently presented evidence to establish the charges.

As Chrisman took the witness stand, Hanson presented the government’s exhibits about several documents consisting of bank records, business license records, airlines records, invoices, letters, and other documents.

Chrisman basically testified that in her opinion based on her review of some documents, she concluded that the signatures and handwriting were of Melvin’s and nothing of Ada’s. She also found that in some documents the couple’s handwriting and signatures were there.

Chrisman also basically testified that in her opinion based on her review of certain documents that contained Ada’s signatures, that Ada may not have signed them. She explained she reached such conclusion by comparing those with Ada’s known signature sample.