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
Jones, Clarence, III v. State of Maryland (2020)
Position: The SBS/AHT hypothesis is unsound and therefore poses a serious risk of wrongful conviction. The hypothesis is no longer supported by reliable scientific evidence, and it has been shown to result in false accusations and convictions.
Decision: Pending.
Case #: CSA-REG-0087
McFarlane, Anthony Ray v. People of the State of Michigan (2020)
Position: Case concerns the Court of Appeals’ recognition of the effect that the word “abusive” has on a jury’s verdict in so-called abusive head trauma (“AHT”) prosecutions.
HH, Christopher v. Sullivan County Department of Family Services (2018)
Position: Cases based on the SBS/AHT hypothesis pose a serious risk of judicial error, especially where the evidence is presented in an incomplete or asymmetric manner.
Decision: On October 18, 12018 the Appellate court ordered that the “order and amended order (of the Family court of Sullivan County) are modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted petitioner’s application with respect to Liana HH.; petition dismissed in its entirety; and, as so modified, affirmed”. (dismissed petition asking for adjudication finding that the children were abused and neglected and imposing protective order, therefore finding in favor of Respondent-Appellant).
Case #: 17265
Patel, Purvi v. State of Indiana (2015)
Position: Challenges to unsound forensic sciences should be basis for granting a new trial.
Decision: The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned Patel’s the conviction and reduced a second charge of neglecting a dependent.
Courts:
Case #: 71A04-1504-CR-00166
Griffith, Evan v. Rednour (2011)
Position: The actual innocence gateway applies to AEDPA’s statute of limitations.
Decision: Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
Counsel:
Courts:
Case #: 10-980
Floyd, John v. Cain (2010)
Position: Post-conviction petitioners, who can establish their actual innocence through newly-discovered evidence of any type, are entitled to seek relief.
Decision: Writ denied.
Courts:
Case #: 2010-KP-0085
Lee, Richard v. Lampert (2010)
Position: The Schlup actual innocence exception recognized for successive petitions applies to the one-year statute of limitation for filing an original petition for habeas corpus relief.
Decision: A petitioner is not barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations from filing an otherwise untimely habeas petition if the petitioner makes a credible showing of “actual innocence” under Schlup v. Delo, but found that the evidence presented in this case was not sufficient.
Counsel:
Case #: 09-35276
Roane, James H., In Re (2010)
Position: Long-standing Eighth Amendment jurisprudence mitigates against the execution of an actually innocence person and an evidentiary hearing is required to assess petitioner’s claim of innocence.
Decision: Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
Counsel:
Case #: 10-7304
Swearingen, Larry R. v. Thaler (2010)
Position: The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the execution of actually innocent people and the petitioner exercised due diligence in bringing forward new evidence of innocence.
Decision: Petitioner’s claims remanded to the trial court and execution stayed.
Case #: 09-70036
Hunt, Lee Wayne v. State of North Carolina (2007)
Position: The attorney-client privilege should not prevent an attorney from revealing, once his or her client has died, that the client told counsel that he alone committed a crime for which another person was wrongly convicted.
Decision: The North Carolina Court of Appeals refused to review the decision of the district court. The defendant’s attorney appealed directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which denied certiorari.
Counsel:
Courts:
Case #: 85CRS 16651-16654
1
of 19
