CIFS and the Innocence Project filed this amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court in Charles Lemons’ case to ask that the court grant Lemon’s relief and hold that (1) biomechanical engineering expert testimony is admissible if proffered by a qualified expert in a relevant case involving SBS/AHT allegations, and (2) in light of a confession’s power to corrupt other evidence in a case and create false indicia of corroboration, confession evidence is not a bar to an otherwise meritorious motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

CIFS filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan in Chazlee Lemons’ case to ask the court to review this case in order to address the Court of Appeals’ improper reliance on insufficient and uncertain forensic testimony and evidence, to clarify the admissibility of biomechanical engineering testimony, to clarify the appropriate use of medical opinion evidence in determining causation, and to clarify the difference between medical data and confession data.