Frenemies of the Court: The Many Faces of Amicus Curiae by Prof. Helen A. Anderson
This article discusses the practice of amicus curiae (also known as “friend of the court”) in the United States Supreme Court. Amicus curiae briefs occur when people offer additional information (and testimony) which is relevant to the case at hand. However, these people are, on occasion, paid by one of the parties (defense or prosecution) in the case. Unfortunately this payment sometimes serves as incentive for the “friend” to bias their “information.” For example, a “friend” who is paid by the defense could include a psychologist testifying the defendant had no control of their actions, did not have the mental capacity to commit the crime, etc. A “friend” paid by the prosecution could be another psychologist, testifying that the defendant is insane and perfectly capable of committing the crime. Professor Anderson points out that the practice of amicus curiae briefs is on the rise, and this fact is almost indefinitely problematic in that as a result, more juries are subject to their influence.
I believe this article indeed highlights one of the key issues within our court system. If the information these people provide is not presented objectively, than the jurors will perceive bias as the truth. In this sense, the author highlighted the curiosity behind the words “friend of the court.” Can a “friend” ever really be objective? Why aren’t they called “informers of the court,” or something less subjective? Either way, while the defense or prosecution obtain the ability to pay friends of the court, I fear that we can never really be sure whether those friends are submitting their honest opinion or one that is monetarily motivated.
P.S. Please note that dogs cannot actually be friends of the court, I simply found the cartoon above amusing.
