Amicus Brief Bank

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.

Position: The Eighth Circuit should act to correct the overly narrow, incorrect interpretations of Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), and Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) that have taken hold within that circuit—in contradiction to the standards that have prevailed in cases from the US Supreme Court and from other federal circuits.

Position: State habeas relief should be granted where prosecution relied on false and scientifically unreliable evidence, and where the jury was not able to consider scientific evidence tending to show that the confession was false.

Position: The use of faulty forensic evidence in criminal trials is a serious, recurring problem in the criminal justice system. When scientific understanding changes, especially when such understanding leads to a critical trial expert’s powerful repudiation of prior testimony, an opportunity exists to remedy the mistakes of the past.

Position: There is no defendant diligence requirement in Brady claims.

Position: Faulty forensic evidence leads to wrongful convictions, which the judiciary can, and should, remedy through new trials; there has been a paradigm shift in the relevant scientific community pertaining to SBS/AHT diagnoses; new evidence undermining the SBS/AHT hypothesis is grounds for a new trial.

Position: The case against Ms. Parks relied upon unreliable expert testimony regarding outdated theories of forensic fire science grounded in discredited forensic techniques and her conviction must be reversed. This brief also includes an argument regarding the bias against female defendants.

Position: Wrongfully Convicted Defendants Cannot Vindicate Their Due Process Liberty Interest in Proving Their Innocence on Post-Conviction Review Without Access to the Scientific or Medical Evidence.

Position: Actions such as the one in this case often present credible claims of serious and destructive official misconduct that should be resolved on the merits by a court. At the same time, a variety of well-settled and frequently applied doctrines are available to screen out insubstantial Fourth Amendment claims at the pleading stage and, indeed, serve effectively to discourage such claims from being initiated at all. Against this background, the “affirmative indicia of innocence” requirement applied serves only to frustrate Section 1983’s central purpose: deterring, and providing compensation for, the deprivation of constitutional rights.

Position: Certain significant prosecutorial misconduct requires not only the vacating of a conviction, but also the dismissal of charges. This is because such significant prosecutorial misconduct pervades the entirety of the case and makes it impossible to have a fair retrial. Dismissal in such instances serves two main interests: redressing defendants and deterring future misconduct.