Amicus Brief Bank

CIFS filed this amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Kimberly Cargill’s case to argue that manner of death testimony fails every requirement of Rule 702 and Daubert. It exceeds the scope of a medical examiner’s expertise, rests on no reliable scientific methodology, and usurps the jury’s core functions of evaluating evidence and determining guilt.

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, the Forensic Justice Project, and forensic science scholars and legal professionals filed this amicus brief on the Supreme Court of Oregon to Odell Adams’ case. This 2026 briefs follows our 2022 brief in the Appeals Court of Oregon which lead to the court ruling that opinions based on the pattern matching method that purport to identify the particular weapon from which a bullet or casing was fired are not scientifically valid and therefore inadmissible. This brief asks the Supreme Court to affirm the Appeal’s Court ruling.

CIFS, New York University School of Law Forensic Defense Clinic, and the Utah Indigent Appellant Defense Division filed this amicus brief in the Utah Supreme Court in Jerad Gourdin’s case to argue that Gourdin’s trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to request the DNA case file. Nine pieces of DNA evidence were tested in this case. All but one excluded Gourdin. Only one item possibly implicated Gourdin, but even that was improperly analyzed by the lab. Indeed, the DNA evidence was far from inculpatory—at best, it was inconclusive.

CIFS, the Innocence Network, the Innocence Project, and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to argue that the court should allow Brensinger to appeal his conviction based on post-trial scientific developments in shaken baby syndrome. We note that the timeliness inquiry should not center on when the science entered the public domain.

Kate Judson of CIFS and 40 other scholars of evidence and forensic science filed this amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Tyler Scott Johnston’s case to ask the court to affirm the District Court’s grant of Johnston’s motion to preclude the DNA analysis in this case. In our brief, we argue that the government’s laboratory has not done validation testing on samples of the degree of complexity at issue and, thus, the analysis of the samples at issue cannot be demonstrated to meet the requirements of admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

CIFS filed this amicus brief in the Court of Appeals of New York in M.H’s case to ask the court to reverse the lower courts’ determinations, dismiss the Family Court petitions against M.H., and grant other relief as deemed just and proper. We encourage the court to consider the pitfalls inherent in proceedings involving unauthenticated forensic evidence created by incentivized informants.

CIFS, the Innocence Network, the Innocence Project, and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to argue that the court should allow Brensinger to appeal his conviction based on post-trial scientific developments in shaken baby syndrome. We note that the timeliness inquiry should not center on when the science entered the public domain.

CIFS participated in this amicus brief filed by the Innocence Network in Jennifer Baldwin’s case to argue that the post-conviction court abused its discretion in applying the Knaffla-bar to Baldwin’s claims. Flawed forensic science is a major contributing factor to wrongful convictions and it’s critical that petitioners have access to the court to litigate these issues post-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 and the Innocence Network filed this amicus brief in the Court of Appeals for the State of Alaska in Lance Hinson’s case to argue against the high burden of AS 12.73. The law currently requires proof of actual innocence to move forward with DNA testing. The Superior Court recently interpreted AS 12.73 to not require actual/factual innocence. Our brief asks the Appeals Court to uphold the lower court’s ruling.

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 Network filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in Cody Kloepper’s case to argue that post-conviction DNA testing requires relief for Kloepper. Other jurisdictions have recognized that even “overwhelming” evidence of guilt does not inherently diminish exculpatory DNA results.

CIFS and the Innocence Network filed this amicus brief in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District in Lawrence Keith Johnson’s case to ask the court to reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief or remand Mr. Johnson’s case to the trial court and order an evidentiary hearing.

CIFS and the Innocence Network filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in Areli Escobar’s case. This brief follows our 2022 amicus brief which sent the case back to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) for further review. The TCCA came to the same conclusion, denying relief. This 2024 amicus brief in Escobar’s case asks SCOTUS to intervene because the TCCA will not.

Kate Judson joined various forensic science and legal professionals to file this amicus brief in the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon in Julian Gallardo’s case to educate the court on issues surrounding the cell phone tracking data. We raise the issue around admissibility of ZetX Trax evidence which uses cell phone call detail records to create maps that supposedly show the phone's location at the time calls were made. Police officers used ZetX in this case to show the jury that Gallardo was at the location of the crime when it happened.

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 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 Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon to Odell Adams’ case to argue that the court should properly apply the preponderance standard for admissibility and find that opinions based on the pattern matching method that purport to identify the particular weapon from which a bullet or casing was fired are not scientifically valid and therefore inadmissible.

CIFS and the Innocence Network filed this brief in the  Supreme Court of the United States in Areli Escobar’s case to educate the court on the unreliable DNA testing that led to his death sentence. Noting that after removing the DNA evidence presented at trial, the remaining evidence relied on by the State was questionable and circumstantial, including varying witness accounts, shoeprint comparison evidence, and latent print evidence.

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 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.

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 filed this amicus brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Cara Rintala’s case to educate the court about the risks of novel science that lacks foundational validity. The victim and the crime scene in this case were covered in white ceiling paint and a paint expert opined on the drying time of this paint.

CIFS and the Innocence Network filed this amicus brief in the Court of Appeal Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in Teddy Chester’s case to educate the court that DNA evidence presented in this case was outdated, unreliable, inconclusive, and far below current standards. This evidence undercuts the constitutional guarantees and raises questions about the validity of scientific evidence more broadly.

CIFS, Boston College Innocence Program, the Committee for Public Counsel Services Innocence Program, the Exoneration Project, the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Professor Brandon L. Garrett, Professor Stephanie Roberts Hartung, Professor Jessica S. Henry, and Professor Jeff Kukucka filed this letter in support of granting further review for Keith Winfield. This brief, filed in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, argues that the appeals court erred in denying Winfield’s petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel due to not consulting with or obtaining a defense expert.

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.

Katherine Judson of CIFS participated in this brief signed by 41 other scholars of forensic science in the  United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Daniel Gissantaner’s case to argue that the district court elevated the Daubert standard when evaluating the admissibility of STRmix. Thorough examination of the evidence more than satisfies the applicable abuse of discretion standard.