Beecher-Monas, E. (2009). Reality bites: The illusion of science in bite-mark evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 30, 1369-1410.
Dror, I. E., Morgan, R. M., Rando, C., & Nakhaeizadeh, D. (2017). The bias snowball and the bias cascade effects: Two distinct biases that may impact forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13496.
Fabricant, M. C. & Carrington, T. (2016). The shifted paradigm: Forensic science’s overdue evolution from magic to law. Virginia Journal of Criminal Law, 4, 1-115.
Findley, K. A. (2008). Innocents at risk: Adversary imbalance, forensic science, and the search for truth. Seton Hall Law Review, 38, 893-973.
Gabel, J. D. (2014). Realizing reliability in forensic science from the ground up. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104, 283-352.
Garrett, B. L. (2016). Constitutional regulation of forensic evidence. Washington & Lee Law Review, 73, 1147-1187.
Gavin, S. F. (2008). No second chances: Best practices for expert practice. Stetson Law Review, 38, 41-74.
Giannelli, P. C. (1997). Essay: The abuse of scientific evidence in criminal cases: The need for independent crime laboratories. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 4, 439-478.
Giannelli, P. C. (2004). Ake v. Oklahoma: The right to expert assistance in a post-Daubert, post-DNA world. Cornell Law Review, 89, 1305=1419.
Giannelli, P. C. (2008). Forensic science: Under the microscope. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 34, 315-339.
Giannelli, P. C. (2011). Daubert and forensic science: The pitfalls of law enforcement control of scientific research. University of Illinois Law Review, 2011, 53-90.
Honts, C. R., & Thurber, S. (2019). Analyzing Iacono’s thought experiment about polygraph field studies: Reason or fantasy? Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice, 48, 76-86.
Jabbar, M. Overcoming Daubert’s shortcomings in criminal trials: Making the error rate the primary factor in Daubert’s validity inquiry. New York University Law Review, 85, 2034-2064.
Johnson, M. B., Baker, C., Prempeh, B., & Lewis, S. R. (2020). Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma: Wrongful conviction risks, mis-information effects, and psychological consultation. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 20, 290-304.
Jurs, A. W. (2016). Expert prevalence, persuasion, and price: What trial participants really think about experts. Indiana Law Journal, 91, 353-391.
McGlynn, K. E. (2019). Remedying wrongful convictions through DNA testing: Expanding post-conviction litigants’ access to DNA database searches to prove innocence. Boston College Law Review, 60, 709-751.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
Porter, W. R. (2009). Repeating, yet evading review: Admitting reliable expert testimony in criminal cases still depends on who is asking. Rutgers Law Record, 36, 48-70.
Richmond, D. R. (2000). Expert witness conflicts and compensation. Tennessee Law Review, 67, 909-948.
Risinger, D. M., Saks, M. J., Thompson, W. C., & Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Daubert/ Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 90, 1.
Thompson, S. G. (2015). Curbing wrongful convictions through independent forensic laboratories. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.