Do the leading digits conform to Benford’s law described in the Chapter Problem?

When testing for goodness-of-fit with the proportions expected with Benford’s law, it is necessary to combine categories because not all expected values are at least 5. Use one category with leading digits of 1, a second category with leading digits of 2, 3, 4, 5, and a third category with leading digits of 6, 7, 8, 9. Are the expected values for these three categories all at least 5? Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the leading digits on the checks do not conform to Benford’s law? Apart from the leading digits, are there any other patterns suggesting that the check amounts were created by the defendant instead of being the result of typical and real transactions? Based on the evidence, if you were a juror, would you conclude that the check amounts are the result of fraud? What would be one argument that you might present if you were the attorney for the defendant?