“Gait” is the manner or style of walking, running, or moving from one place to another. A person who has suffered a stroke may develop a hemiplegic gait, where the leg on the affected side may be extended and internally rotated and is swung in an arc instead of lifting up to walk. The gait of an individual with a stooped, stiff posture, with the head and neck bent forward, can signal a person with Parkinson disease. This is known as a propulsive gait. There are a number of other common types of gait abnormalities, but even a person with a “normal” gait can have a distinctive manner of walking or running.
The scientific study of gait dates back to Aristotle (384–322 BCE). The Greek philosopher and polymath observed that if a man walked alongside a wall holding a reed that had been dipped in ink, the resulting line would not be straight but would move up and down. Since then, many notable researchers, including Descartes (1596–1650), Borelli (1608–1679), and others, have advanced the understanding of gait and specifically gait analysis, ultimately contributing to thousands of pages of published research. Gait as identifier grew from research in the 1970s where researchers Cutting and Kozlowski, and others, investigated the ability of persons to recognize people by how they walked.
The modern, forensic use of gait analysis in assisting with cases involving criminal activity captured on video (or CCTV) began at the turn of this century. In 2000, a podiatrist used gait analysis to opine that a suspect and criminal could be one and the same. R v. Saunders, U.K. Old Bailey (2000) VSCA 58. This testimony contributed to a conviction. Criminal gait comparison or forensic gait analysis entails the evaluation of gait features and comparing those gait features to those of a criminal suspect walking. This evidence is frequently captured on surveillance video footage or CCTV.
This article will examine the scientific foundations, limitations, and current methodology of forensic gait analysis, as well as its criticisms. Moreover, the article will explain that, with video surveillance increasing, and smartphone technology that allows for the recording of crimes, the need for forensic gait analysis—to both exonerate and help convict—is certain to grow. So too will the need for attorneys involved in criminal matters to understand when and how to utilize forensic gait analysis.
Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) in America
Forensic gait analysis is an often-overlooked component of video evidence in America. This is strange, given that gait video analysis has been used in dozens of cases in the United Kingdom (UK) and elsewhere. However, as one study in July 2022 found, major US cities had an average of 2,239 CCTV cameras for every 10,000 people. With such numbers, the use of gait as evidence in the country is likely to increase. For example, Chicago has approximately 32,000 CCTV cameras at last count in 2021. Atlanta now has about 25,000—it is the most heavily surveilled city in the country with 50 CCTV cameras for every 1,000 inhabitants.
In addition, access to Ring doorbell camera footage has grown, and there are hundreds of police departments with partnerships with Amazon’s home surveillance brand. This relationship benefits both sides, as Amazon provides technology to law enforcement, and the police provide data to Amazon. The police also help promote Ring to local homeowners. Ring also has access to real-time 911 data, and it assists police by providing its footage.
Added to these advancements in video coverage across the country is the ubiquitous smartphone and hobbyist or law enforcement use of drones, with their ability to record a video of a crime in progress. From as close as a few feet to as far away as 2,000, video cameras are capturing more of people’s conduct and recording it for potential future use by the legal system.
Gait aside, home surveillance video and time-stamped cell phone images have played a part in law enforcement. There are hundreds of reports of crimes that have been solved due in large part to the assistance of the general public—even unwittingly in some cases. Video evidence is a compelling way to ensure a conviction or, in some cases, an exoneration. The past decade has seen a significant increase in video taken by bystanders being admitted as evidence in court.
While there are many cases that have used video evidence to compare an individual caught on video to a suspect, forensic gait analysis may also suggest that the same individual was involved in two or more criminal acts in different locations and/or at different times. Connecting an unknown perpetrator caught on video to more than one criminal act may be useful in helping to solve a crime or a series of crimes, or show the alternative—that it is not the same person.
The Inception of Gait Analysis Evidence
In 1839, Thomas Jackson was accused of returning to the United Kingdom while sentenced to relocation in Australia, a felony punishable by death. R v. Thomas Jackson, (1839) 277 Eng. Rep. 382. A policeman, George Cheney, testified at Jackson’s trial in London Central Criminal Court. The witness had custody of Jackson two years earlier when he was charged with burglary. Significantly, Jackson had a bowed left leg and walked with a limp due to an accident.
Constable Cheney told the court, “I have not a doubt of his being the man—I know him by his walk.”
This identification of Jackson’s gait resulted in a conviction. It was the first known use of gait as a means of identification.
In 1883, French criminologist and anthropologist Alphonse Bertillon created the first system of physical measurements, photography, and record-keeping to be used by the police to identify recidivist criminals. His method of measuring parts of an individual’s body to identify criminals was known as signaletics or bertillonage. Bertillon also believed that one person’s gait could be different from the next—such as being quick or slow, or a variation in the length of the person’s step. A person’s gait could be light, heavy, tripping, or sedate, and Bertillon detailed types of gaits, such as stiff, measured, gawky, swinging, unsteady, and limping.
Gait evidence was first used in the United States in 1908. A criminal case in Texas included gait testimony from the victim of a robbery. The victim testified that despite the robbers hiding their faces with handkerchiefs, he recognized one of them by his voice and “his walk.” Gill v. State, 119 S.W. 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1909).
Another 1908 case in the UK also relied upon gait testimony. The brutal bludgeoning of an elderly woman caused a need for a quick conviction. The victim’s neighbor in Edinburgh had left for the United States using an alias days after the incident. When he was located, he agreed to return to Scotland, confident that he could prove his innocence. However, at his New York extradition hearing, the victim’s maid testified that she never saw the murderer’s face but identified the neighbor based on the “peculiarity in his walk.” The maid repeated the damning testimony in the court in Scotland. R v. Slater (1909) Roughead, Trial of Oscar Slater (Notable British Trials Series, 4th ed. 1950).
In these cases, laypeople have been permitted to testify as to the gait of the accused. The first scientific testimony in regard to gait in a criminal matter was in 1937. Sir Sydney Smith, Mostly Murder 213 (1959). Sir Sydney Smith, a police surgeon and forensic pathologist in Scotland, was engaged to examine footwear to determine a suspect’s gait. The accused was apprehended after breaking into a shop in Falkirk—caught in only his stockinged feet. The police discovered a pair of boots that the suspect acknowledged were his. Notably, two other burglaries had been committed in the same region over the course of the last few months. Each case had similar attributes, including the same means of approach, mode of entry, the time of the break-in, and the burglar’s general conduct on the scene. In each instance, the burglar jettisoned his footwear close to the spot where he’d broken in.
The suspect in the third burglary claimed his ignorance of the other two incidents, but investigators were certain that the same man had committed all three crimes. The police asked Smith to examine the three pairs of footwear to see if they could have been worn by the same person. Smith examined the footwear and based only on that examination—without having seen the suspect—he gave the police an accurate description of the criminal’s physical description and his gait.
The burglar, Smith determined, had a limb-length discrepancy, with a shorter left leg, and his foot was withered due to paralysis. His left foot, he said, was missing a toe or he had a contracture deformity of a toe, and the foot dragged or scraped on the ground as the criminal moved forward. Smith described the burglar as walking with a limp characterized by a twist of the left foot with its heel moving inward and toe outward. Lastly, Smith said the man’s pelvis dipped to one side due to a curvature of his spine and he had a short stature. At trial, the suspect demonstrated his gait by walking in the courtroom, and every detail that Smith had surmised—only from the man’s footwear—was found to be accurate. The suspect was convicted.
Six decades later, in 1994, was the first time that gait evidence used surveillance video footage. In a Pennsylvania trial for robbery, the Commonwealth called a witness who had known the suspect for about a year and who had observed his “distinctive and easily recognized gait.” Commonwealth v. Spencer, 639 A.2d 820, 824 (Pa. Super. 1994). The woman testified that the suspect had a “bounce in his step … like rolling off a step” when he walked. She viewed the video tape of the robbery and said that the robber walked like the accused. After his conviction, the defendant argued on appeal that the women’s testimony was incompetent and should not have been deemed admissible as she was not qualified to express a gait analysis opinion. But the court of appeals found her testimony to be relevant to establishing the identity of the robber and affirmed the conviction. The superior court applied the approach found in Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701, which states that if the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences that are both (i) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (ii) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Both factors were satisfied in this case.
A short time later, in 2000, a podiatrist was first asked to compare the gait of a person under suspicion to that of an individual captured on video and to then testify in court in London. R v. Saunders, U.K. Old Bailey (2000) VSCA 58. Using police surveillance footage, a consultant podiatrist identified a suspect in a jewelry theft as the person attempting to commit the crime. This is the case mentioned previously where the man was wearing two pairs of pants, a mask, and gloves. Nonetheless, the expert opined that less than 5 percent of the British population had a gait similar to that of the suspect. He was subsequently convicted.
The Use of Gait Evidence Today
The study and practical application of gait analysis have continued to grow in popularity, with it increasingly being used as a contributing factor in the identification process. It is applied as a method of positive identification, as precise individualization of a person’s gait has yet to be fully scientifically proved. Gait evidence is corroborating evidence.
Prosecutors may employ forensic gait evidence and expert testimony to solidify their case against a defendant in a felony criminal trial. For example, in a 2021 Illinois case, the state argued that witnesses identified the defendant to a detective, including his bowlegged gait. The state further argued that the video evidence corroborated the witnesses’ testimony.
In the UK, a 36-year-old man was seen on CCTV taking a laptop and television from a residence in Lancashire. The police found his DNA on a tool left outside the property during the burglary in 2007 and arrested him. Detectives saw that the suspect had a distinctive walk, which was similar to that of the person seen in the video recovered from a camera near the crime scene. The police asked a podiatrist specializing in gait analysis to review the evidence. The expert noted distinct similarities between the suspect’s gait and that of the man on the tape. After seeing the evidence against him, the suspect pled guilty. R v. John Gibson Rigg [24 January 2007] EWHC/ BCC.
Lay Witness Gait Testimony
Expert gait analysis opinion and eyewitness lay testimony on gait have become more acceptable and frequent in American courts, especially in criminal cases. Testimony of a defendant’s gait has been ruled admissible in many jurisdictions.
Court decisions in 2022 discuss the identification of a suspect by friends and acquaintances, rather than expert witnesses. In a civil harassment trial, a plaintiff believed the person in the video, and thus the stalker, was the defendant because that person moved with the defendant’s unusual gait. In that case, the plaintiff had known the defendant since he was a child.
In Wisconsin, the victim’s brother identified the defendant by his build and gait when he was shown a video, which was admissible under state law as a statement of identification made soon after seeing the person.
In a 1999 Massachusetts case, Steven Caruso was convicted of two counts of malicious destruction of property (a car). Commonwealth v. Caruso, 4 N.E.3d 1283, 1285 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). Caruso was a regular diner at the restaurant where Sandra Berfield worked as a waitress. He would come in every day, sometimes twice a day, and spend hours sitting in her section, staring at her. She complained that after she rejected his request for a date, he began stalking her. He was convicted of slashing the tires on her car and pouring battery acid in her gas tank. Caruso filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that Berfield could not see his facial features and according to her trial testimony, she was only able to recognize him from his distinctive gait (which she had observed at the restaurant). She described the gait as “almost like a bounce as he walks with his arm swinging back and forth, his left arm.” His motion was denied, and the court of appeals stressed that this was not a case involving stranger identification, but rather the victim was able to recognize the defendant from his facial features and distinctive gait after having observed him for “literally hundreds of hours and having had reason to have his features etched in her memory.” The conviction was affirmed.
Police Witness Gait Testimony
Like Constable Cheney in London back in 1839, police officers have continued to testify and provide gait evidence. In 2022, a Baltimore police detective observed a defendant walking with a stiff gait—a characteristic he knew was common to a person attempting to conceal a firearm in his pants. In a recent case, a New York detective could identify the assailant in a video by his gait because he had met the man on at least 20 occasions.
In 2015, a video showed a suspect arriving at and leaving the scene of a robbery. The details of the suspect’s face were blurry, but an Ohio trial court allowed a police detective to provide a lay opinion identifying the defendant as the suspect after stating he had opportunities to personally observe the defendant’s appearance, gait, and posture over a period of two years. State v. Coots, 27 N.E.3d 47, 52 (Ohio App. 2015).
New York prosecutors were permitted to present gait evidence, in part because they established that the police detective was familiar with the defendant based on numerous prior interactions with him over the course of more than a year, during which time the police detective observed his gait. Moreover, in it was found that the police detective’s testimony “served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment regarding whether the man in the [video] was indeed the defendant.” The appellate court also noted that the trial judge properly instructed the jurors that, inter alia, the police detective’s testimony should not automatically be accepted and that the identity of the shooter was a question of fact for the jury, thereby emphasizing to the jury that the police detective’s “opinion was merely to aid their decision based upon all the facts and circumstances of the case and that they were entitled to accept or reject it.” People v. Mosley, 200 A.D.3d 1658, 1659 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2021).
Finally, in 2008, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the admission of a police officer’s opinion that the perpetrator’s “gait” in a “lost surveillance video” was similar to the defendant’s gait based on the officer’s past observation of the defendant’s gait. State v. Thorne, 618 S.E.2d 790, 793 (N.C. App. 2005).
Although many courts continue to allow lay testimony in this area, as knowledge of the complexity of providing a sound opinion on gait grows, defense attorneys will have an easier time contesting a lay witness’s testimony about a person’s gait on cross-examination. As a result, gait testimony will be more compelling and stronger when provided by an expert who understands the principles of gait analysis and its sound analysis in the forensic context. Further, this scientific approach will better withstand scrutiny from judges and opposing counsel’s cross-examination.
Expert Witness Gait Testimony
When expert gait analysis testimony is admitted, jurors must incorporate the expert opinion to the similarities or dissimilarities in gait between that of the suspect and the individual captured on CCTV footage.
In 2017, a violent armed robbery by three people took place at store in Wayne County, Tennessee. Ivan Birch et al., Forensic Gait Analysis: Principles & Practice 191 (2020). The incident was captured on surveillance video. The criminals were dressed in black, and their faces were concealed with handkerchiefs. One of the investigators reviewed an earlier video of the premises and saw that on the prior day, a customer, who was known to him, walked with a similar gait as one of robbers.
A forensic podiatrist with training in forensic gait analysis was tasked with comparing the gait of the known person and the robber to determine if they could be the same person. The store had 10 cameras, providing the podiatrist with ample footage, and the fact that both persons were recorded on the same cameras reduced limitations that might occur from variation between cameras, such as different lenses, distance from the subject, and direction or angle.
The podiatrist used a standardized forensic gait analysis approach with a peer-reviewed, tested, validated, and published methodology. The analysis provided support for the proposition that based on gait, the two people could be the same person.
This conclusion (and cell phone data) provided the district attorney with ample evidence to obtain an arrest warrant for the suspect. When the suspect was provided with this gait assessment (and cell phone data), he confessed and identified his accomplices.
The Scientific Foundations of Forensic Gait Analysis
It is important for attorneys to understand the scientific foundations of forensic gait analysis. Forensic gait analysis concerns the extraction of gait features and characteristics from two-dimensional video footage captured under different circumstances.
The science of forensic gait analysis grew from research that explored the use of gait as a contributor to identification as well as medical methods of gait observation. Forensic gait analysis is the analysis, comparison, and evaluation of features of gait to assist in the investigation of a crime. The process involves analysis of video footage of the person of interest that is related to a crime scene and then analysis of footage of a known person, typically a suspect.
Variations in an individual’s body structure and mechanics result in variations in their gait and produce features and characteristics that may vary between people. While these features likely occur in other people, the combination of these features can add to their discriminatory potential in aiding the process of comparison to another individual. It is the observation of these features and an understanding of their significance that is used in forensic gait analysis.
The importance of using reliable methods in forensic gait analysis is recognized by the forensic gait analysis community as essential. To that end, in 2015, the first forensic gait analysis tool designed specifically to be used for the comparison of gait on video, the Sheffield Features of Gait Tool, debuted. While referred to as a “tool,” it can be thought of as a standardized spreadsheet that allows a systematic method for evaluating the characteristics and features of gait, literally from head to foot. This workflow is performed for each piece of footage, with the crime scene video analyzed first and, later, the footage of the suspect. The tool has been accepted as evidence in court in the UK, and its use provides a validated scientific process to assist with gait analysis.
The Sheffield Tool evolved from tested and peer-reviewed observational gait analysis tools used in the field of medicine. Research on the Sheffield Tool has been published in the notable journal Science & Justice with the tool demonstrating good levels of accuracy, validity, repeatability, and reproducibility.
In 2019, forensic gait analysis was recognized in the UK by the government’s Forensic Science Regulator, which published the Code of Practice for Forensic Gait Analysis. The Code provides a basis for professional best practices in forensic gait analysis, and the Sheffield Tool addresses the Code’s standards.
In the US, the International Association for Identification, one of the largest and oldest forensic organizations, has had ongoing presentations and workshops on forensic gait analysis going back to 2013 and 2014 respectively. Its Forensic Podiatry Subcommittee recognized forensic gait analysis in 2009. Presentations on forensic gait analysis have also been hosted at conferences of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, further adding to the discipline’s legitimacy and acceptance.
The Limitations of Forensic Gait Analysis
Gait analysis has limitations, beginning with the fact that this analysis is considered as corroborative evidence because it does not confirm the identity of the suspect and does not provide conclusive proof in court. Gait pattern analysis is impacted by factors that can make it difficult to identify and confirm a suspect.
Video Issues
Forensic gait analysis practice usually relies on the identification of features of gait from CCTV footage or other video camera files. Video cameras have many variables and there are distinct features of the video equipment, which include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Poor resolution.
- Lens distortion.
- Choppy, blurry, or jerky video playback.
- Low frame rate of the footage.
- Limited number of perspectives of the subjects in the footage.
Because of these issues, video footage may be limited in terms of the information it can provide. Moreover, it is also a two-dimensional record of a three-dimensional activity. As such, it is incapable of yielding kinetic data.
Subject Issues
In standard gait recognition, there are several factors concerning the subject that can lead to error recognition:
- The subject in the video footage was carrying an object, which may have affected their gait.
- The subject in the video may purposely disguise or alter their gait.
- Clothing worn by the subject in the video looked to be relatively loose fitting, which can limit the observation of some gait features.
- The subject may have a medical issue or be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
- Environment Issues
- Issues with the environment also put limitations on the video footage. This may include:
- The number of obstacles at the scene that a subject may have to navigate and that may affect their gait;
- Weather conditions and degree of visibility; and
- The terrain, which may be uneven or sloped.
In practice, the forensic gait analyst will initially review the available footage for the attorney to determine if it is adequate for meaningful gait analysis. The features of gait that can be identified are what are known as “class level” features. In other words, they are features that are present in a proportion of the population. As such, these features demonstrate compatibility—not uniqueness. A fundamental skill of a forensic gait expert is to possess an understanding of the prevalence of the features of gait identified in the population, like the testimony of the expert in the UK jewelry trial who opined that less than 5 percent of the British population had a gait similar to that of the suspect. It is this judgment that makes gait analysis so valuable in criminal cases. This judgment has been based on things like prior experience from past casework, training, clinical practice, journals, and treatises, along with published case studies and research papers.
Criticisms of Forensic Gait Analysis
Criticism of forensic gait analysis appears to fall into two categories: authors of scholarly articles who condemn forensic science in general, with discussion of forensic gait analysis as an example, and those who are directly critical of gait evidence.
Those who have previously provided criticism of forensic gait analysis generally speak of the lack of research validating the methods used by forensic experts. However, recent publications pronouncing the scientific strength of the Sheffield Gait Tool have addressed these arguments. Further, recent criticism typically references older publications for support while failing to recognize the use of the Sheffield Tool or appreciating the recent research validating its use. Others simply focus on the fact that gait analysis is not a positive identification, which the scientific community readily admits.
Again, the current practice of forensic gait analysis is not a means to provide positive identification of an individual unless a very limited population is being considered. In the general population, science has not proven that gait is unique. As a result, at this time a conservative approach is taken where it’s presumed more than one person can have the same gait. Thus, the use of forensic gait analysis is assistive and, by itself, would be unlikely to convict. However, a significant difference in gait could raise enough doubt for a jury to exonerate.
The Admissibility of Gait Analysis Has Been Questioned
In a case in Denmark, a 2002 robbery/murder investigation used video to analyze a suspect’s gait. The bank robbery was recorded by several CCTV cameras in the bank. The gait experts were asked to provide video analysis. They immediately saw that one robber had a somewhat wide gait, “characterized especially by hyperextension of the knee joints, as well as rather outward pointing feet.” In addition, they saw a “rather pronounced swagger,” with the shoulders making pronounced side-to-side movements. The gait experts identified similar features in the videos of the suspect. They testified that the suspect “might very well be identical to the perpetrator” but stressed that they had no basis for a statistical assessment of the degree of concordance, and that identification by their methods did not constitute identification in terms of DNA typing or fingerprinting. Significantly, the prosecution and the defense both questioned the findings and use of gait. Nonetheless, the judge admitted the gait evidence, and subsequently, the suspect was convicted. Neils Lynnerup & Jens Vedel, Person Identification by Gait Analysis and Photogrammetry, 50 J. Forensic Sci. 112 (2005).
In another case, a suspect was convicted in the UK using gait analysis from a video recording in 2009. The video footage showed a man at a gas station walking from a vehicle that was later used in a murder. The suspect was seen in the footage and was identified by his gait. The identification was made by a podiatrist, who examined the CCTV footage and compared it to video of the suspect taken at a police station. The defense counsel contested the admissibility of the testimony of the expert for these reasons:
- The image comparison was within the purview of the jury; as such, expert testimony was not required;
- There was no scientific basis or measurements to support the expert’s methodology; and
- There was a lack of a “sufficiently recognized body” of experience to support gait analysis.
However, the expert report provided justification and validation of the scientific value of the field. This support for the discipline convinced the judge that gait analysis was a sufficiently organized body of knowledge, that the podiatrist was qualified to provide expert opinion, and that the expert was knowledgeable as to the range of both common and more unusual gait characteristics. The judge rejected the suspect’s challenge and permitted the expert to opine on the similarities in gait between the suspect and those of the man in the CCTV images to assist the jury in their evaluation of the evidence. The suspect was convicted of murder. On appeal, the appellate court stressed that, generally, the admissibility of such “podiatric” evidence should be determined on a case-by-case basis to be confident that the testimony is limited to the area of expertise of the particular expert and that the court clearly specifies the framework for the scope of the evaluation. R v. Otway [2011] EWCA (Crim) 3 (Eng.).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
A growing number of cases have seen a defendant claim that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel when their attorney failed to investigate, consult, retain, or request an expert witness in gait analysis. One such case stems from an armed robbery that happened at a Detroit gas station. The gas station attendant and manager identified the defendant as the masked robber. He was arrested and charged with armed robbery. At trial, the victim of the robbery and the gas station attendant both positively identified the defendant. In addition, a surveillance video that captured the robbery was admitted into evidence at trial. The video showed that the robber had a limp. Based on the robber’s limp as shown in the video, the gas station manager, who did not witness the robbery, also identified the defendant as the suspect in the video.
The defendant claimed that it was a case of mistaken identity at trial. He, along with his ex-girlfriend and mother, testified that the defendant was home at the time of the robbery and that, while he had a limp due to the amputation of his right leg, his limp was different than that of the man on the video. No physical evidence was introduced connecting the defendant to the crime, but the trial judge found the eyewitness identifications credible and found the defendant guilty.
The defendant’s attorney admitted his gait compared to the gait of the perpetrator in the surveillance video, which was a pivotal issue in the trial. However, he also acknowledged that he did not consider consulting with an expert in prosthetics or gait analysis and did not follow up on this important part of the defense.
On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals found the defendant was in fact denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to use readily available evidence to impeach the eyewitness identifications and failed to investigate or retain an expert on prosthetics or gait analysis. People v. Ballard, No. 325731, 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 1550, at *1 (Aug. 18, 2016).
Forensic Gait Analysis in US Courts
Forensic gait analysis in its current form has not been used at trial in America and therefore has not yet been subjected to a Daubert challenge. However, a judge in New York took forensic gait analysis into account in deciding to exonerate a wrongfully convicted man. In that case, a podiatrist used forensic gait analysis to determine that the gait of the criminal and convicted man were different. Ken Otterbourg, Other Exonerations from Queens County, New York, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations (Dec. 16, 2022).
Conclusion
The admission of video evidence in criminal matters will continue to grow, and with it, those perpetrating crimes will increasingly take measures to conceal their identity. Even so, criminals cannot hide their gait. This is a significant fact for attorneys on both sides of a criminal case.
Those involved in the defense or prosecution will eventually find themselves participating in a case where gait is a critical issue; and while gait by itself cannot convict, it can be compelling, corroborating evidence, or alternatively, a difference in gait may be the doubt the jury needs to exonerate.
