This amicus brief challenged unreliable firearm tool mark comparison expert testimony. We joined with numerous amici in arguing that traditional forensic firearms and toolmark comparisons raise reliability concerns regarding methods and applications of the methods, showing that the scientific community has carefully detailed the lack of reliability of firearms and toolmark comparisons. Read the brief
Publication Type: Amicus Briefs
Bolin v. Gittere
This amicus brief was filed in collaboration with the Innocence Project and Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Mr. Bolin has served 28 years on death row, and his conviction was based on several questionable evidentiary methods. We argue that the eyewitness testimony in his case was highly suggestive and unreliable. Read the case
California v. Tidd
We partnered with Kelly Woodruff at the Complex Appellate Litigation Group to file a an amicus brief in the California Court of Appeals, challenging the reliability of firearm/toolmark evidence. Read the case
North Carolina v. Price
North Carolina v. Rodgers
This amicus brief challenged DNA analysis that grossly deviated from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Crime Lab’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) in several ways, including using 10 times less DNA than the minimum indicated in the lab’s SOPs as the threshold for reliable analysis. Read the brief
Thompson v. Spitzer
This amicus brief challenged Orange County’s (CA) District Attorney’s (OCDA) DNA database collection program, in which defendants’ charges are routinely dismissed or negotiated in exchange for their DNA – colloquially known as their “spit and acquit” program. Yvette Garcia Missri, Brandon Garrett, and Berkeley Law’s Andrea Roth argue OCDA’s program is a black box with […]
United States v. Green
This amicus brief challenged unreliable firearm tool mark comparison expert testimony. We partnered with the Innocence Project in arguing that traditional forensic firearms and toolmark comparisons raise reliability concerns regarding methods and applications of the methods, showing that the scientific community has carefully detailed the lack of reliability of firearms and toolmark comparisons. We also […]
Illinois v. Prante
This amicus brief challenged the reliability of bite mark evidence in Illinois, a Frye state. The brief shows why bite mark evidence is inherently unreliable and urges the Illinois Supreme Court to explicitly declare bite mark evidence inadmissible under Frye. Mr. Prante is represented by the Exoneration Project and the Innocence Project. We filed the […]
Juarez v. Garland
This amicus brief was filed on behalf of several scholars and organizations, including Brandon Garrett and Yvette Garcia Missri at the Wilson Center and Gabe Berumen, J.D. Candidate, Class of 2023, Duke University School of Law, and the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. It argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding […]
State v. Richardson
This amicus brief filed on behalf of the Innocence Project and the Wilson Center argues that the bite mark evidence and testimony used in State v. Richardson lacked scientific foundation. Read the brief