CIFS and interested physicians and scientists filed this amicus brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Shu Feng Hsu’s case to educate the court on issues surrounding shaken baby syndrome. We ask the court to vacate and enter judgment as SBS/AHT is not a reliable foundation on which to base a criminal conviction.

CIFS participated in this amicus brief filed by the Innocence Network in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana in Katherine Proctor’s case. They outline Montana Rule of Evidence 702, requiring that scientific evidence offered by expert opinion must be reliable. The state expert in Proctor’s case concluded that small subdural hemorrhage, hemorrhaging in the eyes, and hypoxic-ischemic injury are evidence that the baby was shaken. They argue the conclusion is not based on a reliable scientific method of study, therefore, violating rule 702.

CIFS, the Innocence Network, Dr. Waney Squier, Dr. Knut Wester, and Dr. Jane Turner filed this amicus brief in the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Joshua Peacher and Nereida Allen’s case to educate the court on the fallible origins of shaken baby syndrome. We ask the court to carefully consider the shift in medical science that underlies the SBS/AHT hypothesis and reverse the Jefferson Circuit Court’s order denying Peacher and Allen’s motion to vacate and grant them a new trial.

CIFS and the Innocence Project filed this brief in the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division in Darryl Nieves’ case to ask the court to affirm the trial court order excluding expert evidence concerning the AHT diagnosis, and affirm the dismissal of the indictment.

Kate Judson of CIFS and various other legal scholars filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Georgia in Danyel Smith’s case to urge the court to grant a discretionary appeal. This case satisfies the standards of Supreme Court Rule 34 given that (1) the trial court committed reversible error by failing to grant Mr. Smith an evidentiary hearing; and (2) the bench and bar would benefit from additional precedent clarifying that changes in scientific or medical consensus warrants a new trial under Timberlake.

CIFS filed this amicus brief in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Robert Roberson’s case to argue that shaken baby syndrome as we know it today, is junk science and Roberson is entitled to habeas relief. We ask for a new trial based on the erroneous nature of the SBS/AHT hypothesis.

CIFS and the Innocence Network filed this amicus brief in United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Southern Division in Tasha Shelby’s case to educate the court on the change in science in shaken baby syndrome. The expert at trial has since retracted his opinion in Shelby’s case based on the change in science. We argue that the shift in understanding around the SBS triad satisfies the newly discovered evidence standard.

CIFS and the Innocence Network filed this amicus brief in the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division II in Leon Reyes case to argue that the shift in shaken baby syndrome warrants a new trial for Reyes. We note here is material evidence discovered since trial that could not have been discovered before that would likely change the result at a new trial.

CIFS and the Mississippi Innocence Project filed this brief in the Supreme Court of Mississippi in Joshua Clark’s case to argue that opinion testimony purporting to determine with certainty that a third-party’s unwitnessed conduct constituted “abuse,” based solely on a few non-specific medical findings, is not admissible by Daubert and Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702.

CIFS and the Innocence Network filed this brief in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in Clarence Jones’ case to argue that the shift in scientific understanding of SBS satisfies the newly discovered evidence standard and the court should overturn the denial of innocence petition and vacate his convictions.

CIFS partnered with National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, Center for Family Representation, Bronx Defenders, and Family Justice Resource Center to file this brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in the estate of Lana Keenan. We argued in a suit for damages after the county improperly separated the family from their dying baby after a false accusation of shaking was made.