Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Brief of Amici Curiae The Innocence Project & the Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law in Support of Defendant-Appellant
This brief argues that eyewitness memory is unreliable and can be changed by repeated questioning. It claims the trial court improperly allowed an in-court identification after the witness failed to identify the defendant earlier.
Brief of Amicus Curiae The Innocence Project, Inc. in Support of Defendant-Appellant
This brief argues that expert testimony on eyewitness identification is crucial for jurors. It contends that excluding such experts, based on other evidence, increases wrongful convictions by preventing fully informed judgments.
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner
The brief argues Oklahoma's highest criminal court wrongly upheld a death sentence despite the State admitting error and prosecutorial misconduct. It claims the court ignored precedent and new evidence.
Brief of Amici Curiae Terry Kupers, Craig Haney, Pablo Stewart, and Stuart Grassian in Support of Plaintiff-Apellee and Affirmance
This brief argues solitary confinement causes severe mental and physical harm, especially for vulnerable individuals. It states depriving prisoners of social contact and stimulation inflicts grave, lasting damage.
Brief of Amici Curiae Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction & California Society of Addiction Medicine in Support of Objector and Appellant
This brief argues that courts should use consistent, evidence-based criteria to diagnose substance use disorders, not subjective judgments.
Brief of Legal Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees
This brief argues that public nuisance law traditionally covers harm from unreasonably sold products, like those in the opioid crisis. It asserts that liability and remedies awarded in this case align with historical legal principles.
Brief of the Nat’l Ass’n of Counties, the Cnty. Executives of Am., the Nat’l League of Cities, the U.S. Conf. of Mayors, and the Int’l Mun. Lawyers Ass’n as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees Urging Affirmance
This brief argues that pharmacies contributed significantly to the opioid crisis by failing to stop suspicious prescription drug sales. It asserts that pharmacies should be held responsible for their role in the epidemic.
Application for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief and Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae ACLU, ACLU of Northern California, et al., in Support of Petitioner Tony Hardin
The brief argues that a law denying parole opportunities to young adults serving life without parole sentences is racially biased. It claims the law reflects stereotypes and demands strict legal review due to its discriminatory nature.
Application to File Amici Curiae Brief and [Proposed] Brief of Amici Curiae for the Santa Clara County Independent Defense Counsel Office (“IDO”) in Support of Defendant and Petitioner Tony Hardin
This brief argues that denying parole to young adults sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before age 26 is unfair. It states that all youthful offenders should have a chance at parole if they show rehabilitation.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center and RISE for Youth
This brief argues that children's unique developmental traits require special legal protections. It asserts that a school violated a student's Fifth Amendment rights by compelling statements used in juvenile court.
Wisconsin Innocence Project Amicus Brief
False confessions are a significant problem, especially with children. This brief explains how current police tactics can lead innocent people, particularly minors, to confess to crimes they did not commit.
Retired Massachusetts Judges Brief et al. in Support of Appellants
This brief argues that mandatory life without parole sentences for 18-20 year olds violate the state's constitution. It asserts that late adolescents share characteristics with juveniles, making such sentences cruel and unusual punishment.
Corrected Brief for the Committee for Public Counsel Services as Amicus Curiae in Support of Messrs. Mattis and Robinson
The brief argues that parole for juvenile homicide offenders works, citing successful outcomes. It contends that 18-20 year olds should also be eligible for parole, as they are capable of change.
Brief of Amici Curiae Boston University Center for Anti Racist Research, Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Center on Race Inequality and the Law, and Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard Law in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Affirmance
This brief argues that extreme racial disparities in life without parole sentences for 18-to-20-year-olds violate Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights.
Application to File Amicus Curiae Brief and [Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of Prosecutors Alliance of California in Support of Neither Party
This brief argues that denying youth offender parole to young adults serving life without parole sentences violates equal protection. It claims prosecutors' charging decisions should not be the sole factor determining parole eligibility.