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

View PDF

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

View PDF

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

of 21

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.