Resources

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.

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.

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.

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.

This amicus brief, described in this story, was filed on behalf of 26 leading forensic analysts, statisticians, and researchers, who advocated for careful analysis of the reliable application of fingerprint methods to the facts in a case.