Shifting Policy Through the Courts:
A Look Back at Our Amicus Efforts, June 2023-2024
At the New England Innocence Project, we know that impact means both working on individual cases where we can walk with people into freedom and making systemic changes to fight injustice in the criminal legal system. 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 us 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:
It is never too late for justice. Where new science on eyewitness memory demonstrates that a person was identified through highly suggestive procedures in 1976, leading to a real risk of misidentification and wrongful conviction, a person must be able to get a new trial - a fair trial - where the jury has the opportunity to weigh the evidence in light of what we now know. Commonwealth v. Raymond Gaines.
Innocent people who were wrongfully convicted and incarcerated should be financially compensated for all they have suffered. The compensation statute should be interpreted broadly to protect innocent people, and in any event, innocent people should not be worse off because the Commonwealth chose to dismiss charges rather than test them with a jury. Commonwealth v. Roberto Cruz.
Courts should always have the power to correct wrongful or disproportionate verdicts. In addition, experts about racism and trauma should not be held to a higher standard than other experts. Commonwealth v. Daniel Rogers.
Where an innocent person can feel pressured to “take responsibility” for the crime of which they were convicted in exchange for a chance at freedom, a person’s statements to a parole board should not be used to defeat an otherwise meritorious claim that they were wrongfully convicted. Commonwealth v. McDermott.
Misleading forensic testimony and government misconduct are leading causes of wrongful conviction, and the new DNA evidence in this case, alongside a confluence of factors, warrant a new trial. Commonwealth v. Marrero.
To safeguard the presumption of innocence and prevent wrongful convictions, prosecutors must fulfill their duty to investigate both known and potential police misconduct. Graham v. District Attorney of Hampden County.
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.