Javascript is disabled! Innocence Network
logo
Who We Are
Getting Involved
Joining the Network
Seeking Assistance
Resources
Find Your Local Org
Who We Are
Our WorkMember OrganizationsOur Community
Getting Involved
InitiativesCollaborationsInnocence Network ConferenceStart a Student Club
Joining the Network
Become a MemberStart an Innocence Organization
Seeking Assistance
Frequently Asked Questions
Resources
Network Resource LibraryAmicus Brief BankResources for Researchers
Find Your Local Org

Amicus Brief Bank

The Amicus Brief Bank is an online archive of all Amicus Briefs filed by the Innocence Network in cases around the country.
What is an Amicus Brief?

An amicus brief is a written legal argument filed by someone not directly involved in a case on appeal to help educate the court about particular issues. The Network decides when to file amicus briefs based upon many factors including which jurisdiction the case is in, what the particular issues being advocated are, and what kind of an impact the brief might have.

Submit an Amicus Brief Request

See our amicus brief request page to submit a request to the Innocence Network’s Amicus Committee

View the Amicus Brief Bank
filter by
sort by
all amicus briefs
Amicus brief
Police or Prosecutorial Misconduct
State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures
Jonathan D. Smith v. State of Maryland (2022)
Position: To deter the prosecution from committing egregious and willful misconduct in the future, the court should set a reasonable standard for due process dismissals, and the lower court acted unreasonably in permitting retrial here, given the misconduct that occurred in the case and the resulting prejudice to the defendant.
Decision: Granted leave to argue merits
Counsel:  

Innocence Project/K & L Gates

Courts:  

Maryland Court of Appeals

Case #: CSA-REG-0283-2021
View PDF
Amicus brief
State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures
Darnell Martin v. State of Delaware (2023)
Position: The case concerns whether individuals convicted of crimes who have served their sentences can still mount state post-conviction challenges to their convictions based on collateral consequences.
Decision: Pending
Counsel:  

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

Courts:  

Supreme Court of Delaware

Case #: 112, 2021
View PDF
Amicus brief
State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures
Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing/Complex DNA Issues
Kares v. Morrison (2022)
Position: For federal habeas purposes, an application for DNA testing under Michigan's statute is an “application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim” within the meaning of AEDPA, § 2244(d)(2), and therefore triggers AEDPA’s statutory toll
Decision: On 5/25/22, the Court denied the Motion for Chapter 64 DNA Testing
Counsel:  

MacArthur Justice Center (Supreme Court and Appellate Project, DC)

Courts:  

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Case #: No. 21-2845
View PDF
Amicus brief
Eyewitness Identification
Unreliable Forensic Science
Other Issues
Commonwealth v. Ricky McGinnis (2022)
Position: Court should allow admission of expert testimony about false memories; Given the complexity of memory creation, expert testimony is a critical tool to educate jurors about the underlying science and to dispel any misconceptions jurors may have.
Decision: Pending
Counsel:  

Cooley Law Office

Courts:  

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Case #: 204 WAL 2021
View PDF
Amicus brief
State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures
Other Issues
Dorotik v. Superior Court (2022)
Position: Where an innocence organization wins post-conviction relief for a client, it should be allowed to continue representing that client at subsequent re-trial proceedings, and the Court should not read California's statute to require that a public defender be appointed to replace the innocence organization.
Decision: Pending
Counsel:  

Paula Mitchell & Eliza Haney, Loyola Project for the Innocent

Courts:  

California Supreme Court

Case #: S275639
View PDF
Amicus brief
Unreliable Forensic Science
State v. Nieves (2022)
Position: To support the trial court's Frye ruling barring testimony based in SBS/AHT dogma
Decision: Pending
Counsel:  

Nakul Y. Shah, Riker Danzig LLP

Courts:  

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Case #: MID-17-000837
View PDF
Amicus brief
Informant Testimony
Darrell Hemphill v. State of NY (2023)
Position: IP and the Network were amicus on an earlier iteration of this case, where SCOTUS agreed that the use of a co-defendant's plea allocution at trial violated the Mr. Hemphill's confrontation rights. SCOTUS remanded to NY COA, which deemed the violation to be harmless error, given the additional informant testimony implicating Mr. Hemphill in the crime. Mr. Hemphill is now seeking cert again on the question of whether the COA's determination of harmless error was proper, and we are writing to provide the Court with an overview of the myriad problems inherent to informant testimony.
Decision: Pending
Counsel:  

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Courts:  

Supreme Court of the United States

Case #: 22-488
View PDF
Amicus brief
Unreliable Forensic Science
Prante, John, People of the State of Illinois v. (2022)
Position: The Court should grant Amici’s motion for leave and accept the proposed brief, under the third reason listed above, because of Amici’s unique expertise on issues related to the use of flawed or unreliable scientific and forensic evidence—including bite-mark evidence, which is at issue in this case—and the ways in which such faulty evidence contributes to wrongful convictions.
Decision: Pending
Counsel:  

Fox Swibel Levin & Carroll LLP

Courts:  

Supreme Court of Illinois

Case #: 127241
View PDF
Amicus brief
Actual Innocence
New Evidence of Innocence
Shaken Baby Syndrome
State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures
Gutierrez, Ruben, Ex Parte (2022)
Position: The Court should exercise its equitable and statutory authority to sever the unconstitutional provision of Chapter 64 and enforce the remainder of Chapter 64 so as to order the requested DNA testing.
Decision: On 5/25/22, the Court denied the Motion for Chapter 64 DNA Testing
Counsel:  

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Courts:  

107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Case #: 98-CR-1391-A
View PDF
Amicus brief
Actual Innocence
New Evidence of Innocence
Shaken Baby Syndrome
State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures
Smith, Danyel v. State of Georgia (2022)
Position: Based on the widely recognized, fundamental shift in the medical underpinnings of an SBS diagnosis, the trial court erred when it failed to grant Mr. Smith a hearing on his extraordinary motion for new trial.
Decision: Decided May 13, 2022; the Supreme Court of Georgia granted the application for discretionary appeal.
Counsel:  

King & Spalding, LLP

Courts:  

Supreme Court of Georgia

Case #: S22D0915
View PDF
1
of 21
logo
The Innocence Network is an coalition of organizations dedicated to providing pro bono legal and investigative services to individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which they have been convicted, working to redress the causes of wrongful convictions, and supporting the exonerated after they are freed.
Innocence Network © 2021
CATEGORIESWho We AreGetting InvolvedJoining the NetworkSeeking AssistanceResources
popular topicsFrequently Asked QuestionsInnocence Network ConferenceMember Organizations
RESEARCH REQUESTS
AMICUS REQUESTS
Want to get in touch?Reach out to our team
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. Read our cookies policies here.