Shifting Policy Through the Courts:
A Look Back at Our Amicus Efforts, June 2022 - 2023
Amicus support is one way we attempt to create change and shift judicial policy on issues that matter to our community. We file briefs in cases where we believe the perspectives of our community should be represented and where we have some expertise that might help the Court in deciding a case. We have a very active amicus practice because we know that every decision the Court makes can impact our community and so we must make sure that we take every opportunity to be heard. We also work in coalition with other community organizations with whom we are aligned in values and vision.
In some cases where we file an amicus brief, the Court adopts our position. In others, the Court sidesteps the issue that we have briefed or decides differently. Whether we believe that we will ultimately be successful, our goal in our amicus practice is to be honest about what we see and what our community experiences in the criminal legal system. We know that change takes a long time, but in order to make the law more responsive to people’s needs and community demands, we believe that we must speak plainly and truthfully, even if it is not initially accepted. We are experts at persevering, and our amicus practice is no different.
In the last year, we have filed numerous amicus letters and briefs in the Supreme Judicial Court. Here are just a few of the issues we have been raising with the Court in the last year:
Racial profiling by law enforcement is unacceptable and unconstitutional whether it is during a traffic stop, a pedestrian stop, or any law enforcement encounter. Commonwealth v. Van Rader. If you have a Mass Lawyers Weekly subscription, you can also read a news article on the decision.
When a Court-appointed attorney has openly expressed bigoted views against the very groups to which his client belongs, the resulting convictions must be overturned and new trials ordered. Commonwealth v. Dew. Here is a news article on the case and you can read our blog post here.
Both the DNA evidence as well as a “confluence of factors” demonstrates that justice was not done in this case and the defendant should receive a new trial. Commonwealth v. Duguay.
Trial courts should have broad power to reduce verdicts that are disproportionate to the acts of the person convicted if reducing the verdict would be consistent with justice. Commonwealth v. Pfeiffer.
Science requires the Court to change the rules regarding identification by surveillance video. Otherwise, as surveillance technology grows as a source for identification, more wrongful convictions will occur. Commonwealth v. Brum and Commonwealth v. Fisher.
Rules to safeguard people from mistaken eyewitness identifications at trial should also apply in other proceedings – like probation revocation hearings – because they are grounded in science and a person’s liberty is at stake. Commonwealth v. Jerome Jarrett.
Our amicus work is just one of many ways we advocate for freedom and fight against injustice, and we are grateful to our community partners, with whom we work in coalition, as well as our pro bono partners, who support this aspect of our work. The fight continues.