At the New England Innocence Project, our work goes beyond litigating one case at a time. We also take every opportunity to raise our voices to effect systemic change. Whenever the Court makes a decision in an individual case, it has the power to change the law for everyone. Engaging in amicus work allows us to use our knowledge and expertise to help shape these decisions, helping to prevent future tragedies and create more freedom.
When we file amicus briefs in cases—often in coalition with similarly aligned community partners—we advocate for, and stand with, members of our community. Whether the Court adopts our position or not, we are committed to shining a light on the injustices our community faces in the criminal legal system.
In the last year, we have seen the significant impact of our amicus work in a number of Court decisions, including in the following cases:
Commonwealth v. Gaines: In affirming the lower court’s decision to grant Mr. Gaines a new trial, the Court found that new science on eyewitness identification qualifies as newly discovered evidence that could lead to relief for those convicted on the basis of unreliable eyewitness identifications.
Commonwealth v. Mercado: Building on its decision in Gaines, the Court emphasized that Massachusetts courts did not sufficiently understand critical advancements in eyewitness identification science until 2015. This opens the door for individuals convicted as a result of eyewitness misidentification before 2015 to present developments in eyewitness identification science as newly discovered evidence, opening new pathways to freedom.
Commonwealth v. Rogers: The Court reaffirmed the power of judges to reduce unjust verdicts at any time after a conviction by rejecting a time limit to seek this form of relief. Being able to go back to court at any time after a conviction enables some people to have their cases / sentences reexamined and could mean more freedom.
Commonwealth v. Cruz: Wrongfully convicted people in Massachusetts must meet certain eligibility requirements in order to seek compensation from the state. By limiting these eligibility requirements, the Court made it possible for more wrongfully convicted people to pursue financial relief for the injustice they have endured.
Commonwealth v. Marrero: In overturning Mr. Marrero’s conviction on the basis of new DNA evidence, the Court highlighted how new evidence can reveal misleading arguments about forensics previously made to the jury.
Graham v. District Attorney of Hampden County: In responding to the failure of the Hampden County District Attorney’s Office to look into widespread misconduct in the Springfield Police Department, the Court affirmed that prosecutors have a duty to investigate known and potential police misconduct and to disclose officer misconduct to those accused of crimes. With official misconduct being one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions, knowledge of that misconduct is essential to help prevent injustice.
Commonwealth v. Manuel Rios: The Court decided that judges should allow hearings to investigate the reliability of ShotSpotter, a for-profit “gunshot detection system,” before it can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. This is important because ShotSpotter is unreliable, rife with error both in its operation and in analysts’ interpretations of its results, all of which could result in wrongful convictions.
And we have continued to raise numerous issues with courts in Massachusetts and beyond, while still awaiting decisions, including:
Commonwealth v. Gordon: Forensic evidence is extremely persuasive in criminal prosecutions. When forensic evidence comes in through the testimony of substitute witnesses—those who did not do the forensic testing and stand in for the analysts who did—testing errors and misconduct can go undetected. Massachusetts should re-examine convictions involving substitute witnesses to ensure that the person accused was able to adequately confront the forensic evidence against them.
A series of juvenile cases: Massachusetts must affirm well-established constitutional protections for individuals who record and criticize police violence and limit the over-expansive and discriminatory use of “resisting arrest” charges as a method of controlling and suppressing police opposition and punishing kids simply for being kids.
State v. Reynolds: We know the devastating impact of wrongful convictions on individuals, families, and communities, which is why all wrongfully convicted people in Vermont—not just those exonerated based on DNA evidence—should be eligible for financial relief under Vermont’s compensation statute.
Commonwealth v. Pascual-Santana: The Commonwealth is obligated to thoroughly investigate misconduct allegations. In this case, where we argue that the Commonwealth failed in its duty to investigate allegations of an undisclosed romantic relationship between a judge and a prosecutor, the Court has now appointed a “Special Master” to investigate the matter (including securing evidence and calling witnesses if needed) and report back to the Court with findings.
We are grateful to our community and pro bono partners who support and make our amicus practice possible, and we look forward to sharing the continued impact of our efforts.