The general rule for admitting forensic document testimony is the same as for admitting expert testimony in general. A prospective document expert must satisfy the rather liberal requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The witness must be able to demonstrate some knowledge of the subject beyond that of the average person and be likely to assist the trier of fact in resolving a subject at issue. The specific guidelines for a person attempting to testify as a forensic document expert are ambiguous, and the standard is sufficiently liberal to permit testimony from unqualified persons. The liberal standard for expert testimony persists largely because judges have deemed it the responsibility of juries to assess the credibility of an expert witness. Jurors, however, cannot be expected to be versed in all possible areas of expertise and know in each instance what skill, training, and knowledge is sufficient to render authoritative testimony. Unqualified "expert" witnesses can blur complex issues and distort scientific data in ways the juror is not qualified to discern. The professional societies of document examiners should bear the responsibility of setting minimum standards for education and training that courts can use for guidance when determining the degree of expertise required for a person to be an expert witness in forensic document analysis. Appended relevant court cases