Strengthening Criminal Adjudication Through Friend-of-the-Court Advocacy
A fair criminal justice system depends on reliable evidence and decisions grounded in sound procedure. When appellate courts consider issues that directly affect fairness and accuracy, our lawyers frequently participate as amici curiae—“friends of the court”—to provide information that helps courts reach just outcomes. Below are examples of our recent work.
- State v. Tybear Miles
- State v. Fenimore
- State v. Lee
Challenging the Unchecked Use of Facial Recognition Technology
In State v. Tybear Miles, the New Jersey Supreme Court is examining how much information defendants are entitled to when their cases rely on facial recognition technology (FRT): Does the defendant get to know how the technology works and the steps that police used in inputting information into the software? We submitted an amicus brief for Dr. Gary Wells, a leading expert on eyewitness reliability, explaining the risks of misidentification and wrongful conviction associated with both FRT and human inputs that feed the technology. We urged the Court to require robust discovery into the algorithm and the methods police used. A decision is pending.
Ensuring Access to Critical Expert Testimony
In State v. Fenimore, the firm represented the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences, the Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice at Cardozo Law, and the Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law in a case asking whether experts can ever testify remotely. Although all parties agreed that live testimony is ideal, in some cases where courts are considering the reliability of a particular type of evidence, criminal defendants have an exceptionally difficult time securing a live witness. In some forensic fields, there are very few qualified experts and even fewer who do not have conflicts, or economic incentives, that preclude them from testifying for defendants. The amicus brief argued that courts must consider whether in-person experts are realistically available before denying remote testimony. After argument, the Court dismissed the case due to a plea agreement but referred the issue to a committee to consider rulemaking—an important step toward systemic reform.
Correcting Misconceptions About Forensic Evidence
In collaboration with the ACLU of New Jersey, in State v. Lee, we represented four experts in decision-making and judgment in legal contexts. The case involves whether jurors should be questioned about their preconceived views on fingerprint evidence. Our brief detailed how the public often misunderstands the reliability of forensic methods and explained how juror misconceptions can taint verdicts. We urged the Court to adopt practices—such as voir dire, clear jury instructions, and careful admissibility decisions—to mitigate these biases. A decision is pending.
