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

Shaken Baby Syndrome

Unreliable Forensic Science

State of Montana v. Katherine Anne Proctor (2025)

Position: Rule 702 requires that scientific evidence offered through expert opinion must be reliable: Here, the expert’s conclusion that the present medical findings are evidence that the baby was physically shaken is not based on a reliable scientific field of study, and must therefore be excluded.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Karl Pitcher

Courts:

Supreme Court of the State of Montana

Case #: No. DA 23-0409

View PDF

Amicus brief

New Evidence of Innocence

Other Issues

Ali Tuckett v. New York (2024)

Position: The Court should reject the notion that recantations are inherently unreliable and adopt a multifaceted test for evaluating the reliability of the recanted testimony.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Covington & Burlington LLP

Courts:

Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Case #: 129488

View PDF

Amicus brief

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Katie Garding v. Montana Department of Corrections

Position: Because jurors are heavily influenced by expert testimony, defense counsel must meaningfully assess the need for expert services.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Courts:

US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Case #: 23-35272

View PDF

Amicus brief

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing/Complex DNA Issues

New Evidence of Innocence

State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures

State of Washington v. Cory Kloepper (2024)

Position: Post-conviction DNA test results in this case provide strong evidence of innocence, and in such situations, a new trial must be granted where a jury can consider the new exculpatory DNA evidence.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences

Courts:

Supreme Court of the State of Washington

Case #: 1031840

View PDF

Amicus brief

Unreliable Forensic Science

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing/Complex DNA Issues

Lawrence K. Johnson v. State of Florida (2024)

Position: Unreliable DNA evidence can mislead a jury and result in wrongful conviction; the court should at a minimum hold an evidentiary hearing allowing the defendant to explore the flaws in the DNA evidence presented against him.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Courts:

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District

Case #: 4D2024-1818

View PDF

Amicus brief

Eyewitness Identification

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing/Complex DNA Issues

People of the State of New York v. Tyrone Hicks (2013)

Position: The DNA evidence here is highly probative of innocence, and the evidence offered at trial was weak.

Decision: Decided: February 27, 2014. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Darcel D. Clark, J.), entered October 26, 2012, which granted defendant's motion to vacate a judgment of conviction and directed a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, unanimously affirmed.

Counsel:

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Courts:

Supreme Court of the State of New York

Case #: No. 2592/98

View PDF

Amicus brief

Unreliable Forensic Science

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing/Complex DNA Issues

Areli Escobar v. State of Texas (2024)

Position: DNA can have an outsized influence on jurors and false DNA evidence presented was enormously prejudicial. Shoeprint and latent fingerprint evidence is also unreliable.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Goodwin Procter LLP

Courts:

Supreme Court of the United States

Case #: No. 23-934

View PDF

Amicus brief

Eyewitness Identification

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Cheri Hayden v. Frederick Boutte

Position: Eyewitness identification testimony is far more susceptible to errors than juries realize, and reasonable attorneys must investigate the circumstances of identifications and challenge them, especially where such an identification is the only evidence of guilt.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, LLC

Courts:

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Case #: No. 2023-KP-864

View PDF

Amicus brief

Unreliable Forensic Science

Shaken Baby Syndrome

Erika Mabes v. Shannon Thompson (2024)

Position: The court should be wary of granting the field of child abuse pediatrics the deference the AAP requests

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP

Courts:

U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Case #: Nos. 24-1048 and 24-1082

View PDF

Amicus brief

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing/Complex DNA Issues

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Derek Murchison (2024)

Position: Proving innocence should not be a requirement for new trial in postconviction DNA testing cases.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Wiseman & Schwartz, LLP

Courts:

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District

Case #: 13 EAP 2024

View PDF

of 24

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.

CATEGORIESWho We Are Getting Involved Joining the Network Seeking Assistance Resources

RESEARCH REQUESTS

AMICUS REQUESTS

Want to get in touch?Reach out to our team

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