Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
Brief of Amici Curiae for the Eastern District Attorney
The brief argues that mandatory life without parole is constitutional for 18-20 year olds who commit first-degree murder. It asserts that current science does not require extending protections for juveniles to this older age group.
Brief for Psychology and Neuroscience Scholars in Support of Respondent
The brief argues that a coach's post-game prayers coerced student athletes, violating the Establishment Clause. It contends students felt pressured to participate due to the coach's authority and fear of negative consequences.
Brief of the Juvenile Innocence & Fair Sentencing Clinic in Support of Appellant Reyes
This brief argues that courts should consider juvenile brain science when evaluating a minor's criminal intent. It contends that scientific evidence provides a more complete picture of adolescent decision-making.
Amicus Curiae of Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan for Defendant-appellant John Antonio Poole
This brief argues a later motion for relief is based on a retroactive change in law. It also claims Michigan's constitution bans mandatory life without parole for young adults without individual review.
Brief of Neuroscientists, Psychologists, and Criminal Justice Scholars in Support of Defendant-appellant Sheldon Mattis
Massachusetts law currently bars life sentences without parole for those under 18. This brief argues that scientific evidence shows 18-20 year olds are similar to younger adolescents, making such sentences inappropriate for them as well.
Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Juvenile Sentencing Project at Quinnipiac University School of Law, and Deborah Labelle in Support of Defendant-appellant John Antonio Poole
This brief argues that mandatory life without parole for 18-year-olds is unconstitutional. It states that adolescents at this age are developmentally similar to those under 18, who are already protected from such sentences.
Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent on Review by Amicus Drug Policy Alliance
This brief argues that using only drug weight and packaging to prove intent to deliver unfairly treats drug possession as attempted delivery. It states these factors are unreliable indicators of an intent to sell.
Brief of the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain & Behavior as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent
The brief supports a court order for a death row inmate to receive brain imaging. It argues the All Writs Act permits this testing and that such medical access is not "discovery." The imaging is deemed relevant to the inmate's legal claims.
Brief of Center for Law, Brain & Behavior and Neuroscientists as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant Jwainus Perry
The brief argues that harmful environments, like solitary confinement, cause physical brain changes. These changes are physical injuries, not merely psychological, and legal policies should reflect current scientific understanding.
Brief of Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs, ACLU of Maryland, Public Justice Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, and MD Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant
This brief argues that fear of police, not criminal guilt, often explains why Black men flee from law enforcement. It asks the court to reverse a ruling and clarify that flight alone does not justify a stop and search.
Amici Curiae Brief of the Innocence Project, Inc. and Washington Innocence Project
Mistaken eyewitness identification is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. This brief argues that courts should update their rules for admitting eyewitness testimony to reflect modern scientific understanding of memory and perception.
Amicus Brief of Pacific Juvenile Defender Center and Youth Law Center on Behalf of Appellant Luis Angel Gutierrez
The brief argues that an LWOP sentence for a juvenile offender was improper. It asserts that the court failed to consider the offender's youth and potential for rehabilitation.
BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW, ET. AL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
This brief argues that the "three strikes" rule, requiring upfront court fees from incarcerated people with prior dismissed lawsuits, unfairly blocks poor prisoners from court access.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost in Support of Appellee State of Ohio
The brief argues the General Assembly's decision to transfer certain juveniles to adult court without an amenability hearing is constitutional. It asserts juveniles have no right to such a hearing, and the claim was not properly raised.
Brief of Amici Curiae the Innocence Project, Inc. and the Ohio Innocence Project in Support of Petitioner-Appellant Chaz Bunch
This brief argues for a new framework to assess eyewitness identification reliability. It contends the petitioner's rape conviction, based on a problematic identification, should be reconsidered with scientific evidence.