Javascript is disabled! Innocence Network

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 (2023)
Position: Given the prosecution's extreme and long-running campaign to fabricate evidence against the defendant, the prosecutorial misconduct at issue here can only be remedied by a dismissal of charges.
Decision: Pending
Counsel:  

Innocence Project/K & L Gates

Courts:  

Supreme Court of Maryland

Case #: SCM-REG-0031-2022
Amicus brief
New Evidence of Innocence
Compensation
Apolo-Albino v. Washington (2023)
Position: The court should liberally construe Washington's compensation statute so as to advance the legislature’s goal of ensuring compensation. Thus, the court should not treat non-biological evidence as lesser than DNA evidence in consideration of compensation claims.
Decision: Pending
Counsel:  

Exoneration Project

Courts:  

Washington Division 1 Court of Appeals

Case #: 83552-1
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1
of 21

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