Resource Library
New to the Resource Library?
Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.
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.
Amicus Brief of Crime Victim’s Representative Nelson Rivera
This brief argues that Malvo's request for a new sentencing hearing undermines his prior promises to victims and disregards their rights. It highlights the lasting devastation caused to victims' families.
Brief of Roderick & Solange Macarthur Justice Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner Lee Boyd Malvo
This brief argues that Maryland's Constitution forbids life without parole for juveniles. It asserts that the state's "cruel or unusual" punishment clause offers broader protection than the Eighth Amendment.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant Lee Boyd Malvo
This brief argues Mr. Malvo's sentence is unconstitutional because it never accounted for his youth or systemic racism. It asserts a new Maryland law cannot fix this and Mr. Malvo must be resentenced.
Brief of Amici Curiae Community Passageways, Choose 180, and Rooted Reentry et al.
This brief argues that sentencing children to life in prison, or terms amounting to it, is unconstitutional. It asserts Tonelli's sentence ignored racial bias and lacks valid purpose, advocating for resentencing.
Brief of Amici Curiae Children and Family Justice Center and Juvenile Law Center in Support of Defendant-Appellee
The brief argues that offenses committed by individuals under 18 should be excluded from Class X sentencing eligibility. This change would address the disproportionate impact of such sentences on Black and Brown youth in Illinois.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, et Al., Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant Lee Boyd Malvo
The brief argues Mr. Malvo's sentence is unconstitutional because it did not account for his youth or systemic racism. It asserts a new Maryland law cannot fix this issue, requiring resentencing.
Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of John Antonio Poole
This brief supports John Antonio Poole, arguing his life without parole sentence is unconstitutional. New scientific evidence on adolescent brain development and Supreme Court rulings should allow resentencing.
Brief of Amici Curiae Charles Selby in Support of Defendant-appellant John Poole
This brief argues that the legal system should align with medical science regarding brain development. It contends that the reasoning limiting severe penalties for juvenile offenders should extend to individuals up to age 25.
Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Defendant-appellant John Antonio Poole
The brief argues that scientific evidence shows late adolescents, ages 18-21, share the same developmental immaturity as younger teens, which should allow them to challenge their sentences.
Brief of Advancement Project, Juvenile Law Center, and 38 Other Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
This brief argues that students' non-threatening off-campus speech deserves full First Amendment protection. Expanding school authority over such speech disproportionately harms marginalized students and stifles healthy development.
Brief of Amici Curiae Professional Organizations, Practitioners, and Academics in the Fields of Neuroscience, Neuropsychology, and Other Related Fields in Support of Petitioner
This brief argues the Eighth Amendment forbids the death penalty for 18-year-olds based on predictions of future dangerousness. Scientific evidence shows such predictions are unreliable for those under 21 due to brain development.
Amicus Curiae with Brief in Support of Poole Appeal
This brief argues that individuals aged 17-25 should be classified as juveniles. It posits this age range still possesses characteristics warranting juvenile legal treatment.
Brief of the Due Process Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner
The brief argues a person's age at the time of a crime should not disqualify them from parole consideration. It asserts "youth matters" protections should extend beyond 18 to include young adults up to age 20.
Brief of Amici Curiae Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, et al. in Support of Defendants-Appellees and Affirmance
California's amended law restricts firearm sales to young adults under 21, with exceptions. The state argues these measures promote public safety and reduce gun violence.