Publications

Filters

  • Focus Area

  • Publication Type

North Carolina v. Price

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.

Accuracy of Evidence in Criminal Cases

January 27, 2023

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.

Accuracy of Evidence in Criminal Cases

November 21, 2022

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

Accuracy of Evidence in Criminal Cases, Equity in Criminal Outcomes

October 27, 2022

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 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.

Accuracy of Evidence in Criminal Cases

September 29, 2022

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

Accuracy of Evidence in Criminal Cases

July 13, 2022

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

Accuracy of Evidence in Criminal Cases

October 15, 2021

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.

Accuracy of Evidence in Criminal Cases

March 15, 2021

Motley v. Taylor

This amicus brief, filed on behalf of scholars of criminal, constitutional law, poverty law and access to justice, describes the importance of conducting a robust due process and equal protection analysis when examining the imposition of sanctions on persons without regard to their ability to pay.

Equity in Criminal Outcomes

July 15, 2020

Bryan v. State

This amicus brief, filed by the Amicus Lab team on behalf of researchers, argued that the blood pattern evidence introduced in two Texas murder trials was unreliable, based on more recent scientific research.

Accuracy of Evidence in Criminal Cases

October 31, 2019

Garner v. Colorado

This amicus brief, filed on behalf of scholars representing a variety of disciplines, including law, psychology, neuroscience, and statistics, describes the importance of not relying solely on in-court identifications by eyewitnesses.

Accuracy of Evidence in Criminal Cases

August 14, 2019