Publications

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.

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.

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. 

This amicus brief argues that a non-independent, “surrogate” expert witness violates Rule 703 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation clause of the sixth amendment when they simply parrot or read language of the original analyst report.

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.

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 no transparency, low public safety benefits, and wrought with public policy and ethical concerns – particularly unfettered prosecutorial power.

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 argued that while error rates in forensic firearms identification studies are flawed and misleading, they are nonetheless important and still matter. We filed a similar brief in US v. Walker.

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 brief together with Fox Swibel in Chicago, along with the Innocence Network, legal scholars, scientists and statisticians.

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 that an individual drug substance is an element of the state’s criminal code.

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.