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

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

Amicus brief

Informant Testimony

Police or Prosecutorial Misconduct

James Skinner v. Darrell Vannoy (2024)

Position: Risk of wrongful conviction is heightened when the State relies solely on incentivized witnesses to build its case—calling into question the fairness and accuracy of the verdict, particularly in light of new Brady evidence relating directly to the benefits received by the incentivized witnesses.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

NEUNERPATE

Courts:

Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana

Case #: No. 2024-KP-0142

View PDF

Amicus brief

Police or Prosecutorial Misconduct

False Confessions

State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures

People of the State of Illinois v. Jose Vidaurri (2023)

Position: Court should set a fair and reasonable bar for similarity of conduct for litigants seeking to make newly discovered evidence claims based on a pattern of police misconduct under Illinois law.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Exoneration Project

Courts:

Supreme Court of Illinois

Case #: 129551

View PDF

Amicus brief

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures

John Taylor v. Superintendent Dallas SCI (2023)

Position: Trial counsel's actual conflict of interest (where he represented the defendant and the state's star witness) fundamentally undermines representation so thoroughly that a habeas petitioner need not also establish prejudice under Strickland.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Pennsylvania Innocence Project

Courts:

U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Case #: 23-2511

View PDF

Amicus brief

Eyewitness Identification

People of the State of California v. Steven Dewayne Cheatham (2023)

Position: Eyewitness certainty does not correlate to accuracy and the jury likely was confused by a misleading certainty instruction and the court should provide a legal framework that allows relief in cases of likely wrongful conviction.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Courts:

Supreme Court of California

Case #: Capital Case #: S172432; LA County Superior Court #: TA77801

View PDF

Amicus brief

Unreliable Forensic Science

Jason Smith v. State of Arizona (2023)

Position: Because forensic science has an outsized impact on jurors, cross-examination must include the analyst who actually performed the forensic testing, not a surrogate.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Tonkin Torp LLP

Courts:

Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Case #: 22-899

View PDF

Amicus brief

State/Federal Habeas Corpus Rules & Procedures

Danny Jacobs v. Ryan Thornell (2023)

Position: The Ninth Circuit should overrule its prior precedent and hold that amendments made to federal habeas corpus petitions that have been adjudicated in the district court, but remain pending on appeal, do not constitute a second/successive petition.

Decision: Pending

Counsel:

Federal Defenders of Montana

Courts:

U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Case #: No. 22-16822

View PDF

of 23

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.