News / FJP Releases

October 15, 2025

FJP Files Amicus Brief Urging Fifth Circuit to Grant Relief in Case Marred by Concealed Jailhouse Informant Testimony

Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP), alongside former prosecutors, filed an amicus brief in the capital case of Holberg v. Guerrero, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to reverse the District Court’s denial of Brittany Holberg’s petition for habeas corpus relief.

FJP’s brief underscores that prosecutors have a constitutional and ethical duty under Brady v. Maryland to disclose all evidence favorable to the accused, including information that can be used to challenge a witness’s credibility. In Holberg’s case, the prosecution suppressed critical impeachment evidence about key witness Vickie Kirkpatrick’s status as a paid jailhouse informant and the benefits she received for testifying. Kirkpatrick’s testimony claimed that Ms. Holberg confessed to the crime, directly contradicting Ms. Holberg’s claim of self-defense. Ms. Holberg was entitled to cross-examine Kirkpatrick to uncover her motivation and bias, and without that opportunity, jurors were denied the ability to properly weigh Kirkpatrick’s credibility in providing this material evidence. 

 “Jailhouse informant testimony is among the most unreliable forms of evidence in our criminal justice system and has contributed to countless wrongful convictions, including death sentences,” said FJP Executive Director Aramis Ayala. “When prosecutors conceal deals they offer witnesses in exchange for their testimony or informant histories, they not only violate the Constitution, they erode public trust in the justice system. Accountability, transparency, and adherence to Brady are essential to maintaining faith in the rule of law and the fundamental fairness of the criminal justice system.”

October 10, 2025

The Indictment of AG Letitia James Is an Assault on the Rule of Law

The indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James represents a deeply troubling moment for our justice system. It is the latest sign of a dangerous trend: the weaponization of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to punish public officials for fulfilling their constitutionally mandated responsibilities. This kind of political retribution is the opposite of justice.

This indictment was not brought because AG James broke the law, but because she held Donald Trump accountable for his own illegal conduct.

True law and order require that our justice system operates with integrity, independence, and accountability, not as a tool of political vengeance. Prosecutors have a constitutional and ethical duty to follow the facts and evidence wherever they lead, including choosing not to file charges when the evidence is insufficient to support them, as prior DOJ prosecutors had concluded regarding AG James. That commitment to restraint is not weakness; it is the foundation of fairness. 

Fair and Just Prosecution’s Executive Director Aramis Ayala had the following statement:

“Weaponizing the Department of Justice to target public servants who seek accountability is an assault on the rule of law itself. What we are witnessing is not about law and order; it is about power and political payback. Every attorney in America, especially prosecutors, should be alarmed. When politics replaces evidence and retribution replaces reason, our justice system ceases to serve the people and only serves the powerful. That is not justice. That is tyranny dressed up as law enforcement.”

October 2, 2025

FJP and LEAP Warn: DHS Policy Allowing Immigration Enforcement in Houses of Worship is a Direct Threat to Public Safety

This week, Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP), joined by the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), filed an amicus brief asking a federal appellate court to stop ICE from conducting enforcement actions and arresting migrants in and around houses of worship. The brief urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reverse a district court ruling that upheld the federal government’s elimination of longstanding restrictions on civil immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, including houses of worship. The brief highlights how the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) abrupt policy shift endangers community trust and undermines public safety.

For over 30 years, administrations of both parties recognized that immigration enforcement in or near houses of worship and other sensitive locations, such as schools and hospitals, gravely threatened public safety. Limiting enforcement in these places ensured that victims and witnesses felt safe cooperating with law enforcement and that families could access essential services and enjoy their religious freedoms without fear of government interference. In January, however, DHS revoked these protections, announcing that immigration agents could now conduct arrests in these critical spaces.

“This policy is a threat to public safety,” said FJP Executive Director Aramis Ayala. “When families fear that stepping into a church, synagogue, or mosque could put them or their loved ones at risk of deportation, trust in law enforcement collapses. Victims stay silent, witnesses disappear, and people withdraw from the community. The result is a justice system that cannot solve or prevent crime and communities that are left fractured and vulnerable.”

September 24, 2025

FJP Files Brief Urging Supreme Court to Grant Review in Case Tainted by Gender-Based Jury Discrimination

Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) filed an amicus brief in Bryan Christopher Bell & Antwaun Kyral Sims v. State of North Carolina, supporting a petition for a writ of certiorari urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review North Carolina’s handling of serious claims that gender-based discrimination infected jury selection.

The Constitution forbids striking even a single juror for a discriminatory purpose, and prosecutors must safeguard a fair jury process by supporting meaningful appellate or post-conviction review when evidence of discrimination emerges. In Petitioners’ cases, the record includes an admission that a prospective juror was struck based on her gender. For centuries, women were barred by law from serving on juries, and even after those laws were struck down, prosecutors have used peremptory strikes to remove them from the jury pool. Allowing a conviction to stand when the jury selection was corrupted by gender discrimination diminishes progress toward achieving a fair trial and equality under the law.

“Discrimination in jury selection is a clear constitutional violation and a direct assault on the legitimacy of the criminal justice system,” said FJP Executive Director Aramis Ayala. “When a juror is excluded because of gender, the defendant is denied a fair trial, the juror is denied a core democratic right, and the community is left with a verdict that lacks integrity and cannot command trust. Excluding women in particular revives a long and shameful history of barring them from equal participation in public life, compounding the constitutional harm with a profound social one. The Supreme Court must act to correct this injustice and make clear that discriminatory jury selection will not be tolerated.”

September 12, 2025

FJP Files Brief Urging Court to Protect Prosecutors’ Duty to Correct Wrongful Convictions

Yesterday, Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) filed an amicus brief in Johnson v. Superintendent, Mahanoy SCI calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to rehear a decision that improperly restricts prosecutors’ ability to exercise their discretion and pursue justice when confronted with an unjust conviction.

A prosecutor’s unique role in the criminal legal system is grounded in a duty to seek justice above all, not merely secure and defend convictions at all costs. That obligation extends to post conviction proceedings, where prosecutors must act when constitutional violations arise that compromise the legitimacy of a case. By rejecting the Philadelphia District Attorney’s decision to waive defenses and decline to defend the conviction, the panel opinion disregarded this fundamental responsibility and disrupted long-established principles that give prosecutors necessary discretion to pursue the interests of justice.

“Addressing convictions that are tainted by constitutional violations should not be optional, it is at the core of prosecutorial responsibility.” said Fair and Just Prosecution Executive Director Aramis Ayala. “Preventing prosecutors from fulfilling this duty perpetuates injustice, is an attack on prosecutorial discretion, and undermines the public’s trust in the legitimacy of the legal system. If this decision stands, innocent people will remain behind bars.”