This solution cites three criminal cases from Illinois, Ohio, and California where shoe impressions subsequently led to the conviction of the defendant. The summary of the cases focuses on the courts' ruling regarding shoe impressions.
Case Law Regarding Shoe Impressions as Evidence
Shoe impressions are taken from any surface like mud, snow, dirt, and paint where an imprint
of the shoe can be made. However, for a shoe impression to be effective as evidence, the expert witness providing identification testimony on the shoe impression "must include enough characteristics such at nicks, cuts, and scratches - to establish a match between the print or prints left on the crime scene and the defendant's shoes."1
Courts have accepted shoe impressions as reliable evidence in criminal cases. In People v. Cunningham, No. 1-99-4294, June 28, 2002, the appeal's court re-affirmed the Illinois Supreme Court's holding that shoe impression evidence "may be as reliable and trustworthy as any other evidence." Id. Citing People v. Campbell, 144 Ill.2d 363, 166 Ill. Dec. 939, 586 N.E. 2D 1261 (1992). ...
This solution cites three cases regarding using shoe impressions as evidence in criminal cases. This is a 548 word document citing the three cases and explaining how shoe impressions submitted as evidence by the prosecution resulted in the conviction of the defendants.