Nirenberg Michael, Vernon Wesley, Birch Ivan
Friendly Foot Care, PC, 50 W. 94th Place, Crown Point, IN 46307, United States.
University of Huddersfield, Division of Podiatry and Clinical Sciences, School of Human and Health Sciences, Ramsden Building, Queensgate, Huddersfield, England HD1 3DH, United Kingdom.
Sci Justice. 2018 Jul;58(4):292-298. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2018.03.002. Epub 2018 Mar 7.
The use of gait analysis is a well-established facet of practice for many professions and a fundamental aspect of clinical practice. In recent times, gait analysis evidence has emerged as a new area of forensic practice. As its use has continued to spread and develop, the area of work has come under close scrutiny and subsequent criticism. The purpose of this paper is to examine the historical use of gait analysis evidence and consider the criticisms of this work. Through the use of the historical records of cases within the public domain it has been determined that gait analysis as evidence was first presented in court over 175 years ago, although it has only been utilized by experts in more recent times. The quality of analysis underpinning such evidence has been variable, and has been undertaken by both non-expert and expert witnesses. The work undertaken by expert witnesses appears to have been both non-scientific and scientific in nature, though there is limited reporting of cases involving scientific approaches. Given the variation in the quality of the methodologies utilized, there is the potential for confusion within the courts, where it may be difficult for the judge or jury to determine the appropriate weight that can be attributed to the evidence. It is concluded that future publications should explore the scientific basis of forensic gait analysis to evaluate standards, reliability and validity, as well as reporting the methodologies utilized in relevant cases in the field. It is also recommended that courts consider in greater depth an expert's theoretical approach and experience prior to admitting their evidence. The publication of 'Forensic gait analysis: a primer for courts', although limited in some aspects of its consideration of practice, is a welcome addition to the information available for guidance.
步态分析的应用是许多专业实践中一个成熟的方面，也是临床实践的一个基本方面。近年来，步态分析证据已成为法医实践的一个新领域。随着其应用的不断扩展和发展，该工作领域受到了密切审查和随之而来的批评。本文的目的是研究步态分析证据的历史应用，并考虑对这项工作的批评。通过使用公共领域内案件的历史记录，已确定步态分析作为证据首次在法庭上提出是在175多年前，尽管直到最近才被专家使用。支撑此类证据的分析质量参差不齐，非专家证人和专家证人都进行过相关分析。专家证人所做的工作在性质上似乎既有非科学性的，也有科学性的，不过涉及科学方法的案件报道有限。鉴于所采用方法的质量存在差异，法庭上可能会出现混淆，法官或陪审团可能难以确定该证据应有的适当权重。结论是，未来的出版物应探索法医步态分析的科学基础，以评估标准、可靠性和有效性，并报告该领域相关案件中所采用的方法。还建议法庭在采信专家证据之前，更深入地考虑专家的理论方法和经验。《法医步态分析：法庭入门》这本书虽然在对实践的某些方面考虑有限，但它是现有指导信息中一个受欢迎的补充。
