Amicus Brief Bank

Position: In a post-exoneration civil claim for professional negligence against trial counsel, the statute of limitations should begin to run from the time of the exoneration, and not the time of when the professional negligence was actually committed.

Position: SCOTUS should grant review to resolve a circuit split regarding when the statute of limitations for filing a section 1983 action for post-conviction DNA testing begins to run where here, there is much evidence supporting Mr. Reed's innocence and implicating another and DNA testing could resolve the issue of guilt.

Position: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has the power and statutory obligation to order DNA testing where the provision prohibiting testing has been acknowledged to be unconstitutional.

Position: The Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v Ryan (2012) is critical to protecting the rights of innocent defendants: The Court should uphold Martinez and recognize that, in ineffective assistance cases, the development of a post-trial record is essential and should not be barred by Section 2254(e)(2) of the habeas statute.

Position: The right to present a complete defense (under the compulsory process clause of the 6th amendment and the due process clause of the 14th amendment) is violated when a court improperly limits the presentation of a complete defense, regardless of whether the limitations were arbitrary or systematic, and the Fifth Circuit wrongly limited violations of this right to instances where the limitations were systematic. Second, false confessions are a leading cause of wrongful convictions, and certain police practices are known to create a high risk of false confessions.

Position: Fingerprinting during a Terry stop is an unlawful seizure under the 4th Amendment, particularly in the context of youth.

Position: Informant testimony is fraught with reliability problems, is a leading cause of wrongful conviction and must be carefully scrutinized through cross-examination

Position: Wrongfully Convicted Defendants Cannot Vindicate Their Due Process Liberty Interest in Proving Their Innocence on Post-Conviction Review Without Access to the Scientific or Medical Evidence.

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.

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.