一、中文文獻
（一）書籍
Dan Ariely，誰說人是誠實的，天下文化，2013年第1版
William Burnham著、林利芝譯，英美法導論，元照，2005年二版
王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕，刑事訴訟法（上），承法，2012年初版
王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕，刑事訴訟法（下），承法，2012年初版
朱石炎，刑事訴訟法論，三民，2010年修訂3版
朱富美，科學鑑定與刑事偵查，翰蘆圖書，2004年初版
吳景芳，刑事訴訟法，國立空中大學，2013年修訂再版2刷
黃朝義，刑事訴訟法，新學林，2009年2版
黃朝義，刑事證據法研究，元照，1999年初版
（二）專書論文
張明偉，英美傳聞法則與對質條款的歷史考察，傳聞例外，元照，2016年初版
張明偉，傳聞法則之比較研究：以美國法為基礎，傳聞例外，元照，2016年初版
莊欣婷，美國民事訴訟程序之專家證人制度，工程法律實務研析（七）──法院判決與營建工程鑑定之探討，元照，2016年初版
（三）期刊論文
牛惠之，「科技法律」議題之研究，月旦法學雜誌，第116期， 2005年1月
王兆鵬，重新思維測謊之證據能力，月旦法學雜誌，第135期，2006年8月
王兆鵬，法醫鑑定報告書的證據能力與證明力，臺灣法醫學誌，第1卷第1期， 2009年6月
朱朝亮，科學偵查之類型及其蒐證效力（上），月旦法學教室，第94期，2010年8月
何賴傑，傳聞法則之同意，月旦法學雜誌，第114期，2004年11月
何賴傑，論刑事訴訟法之傳承與變革──從我國與德國晚近刑事訴訟法修法談起，月旦法學教室，第100期，2011年2月
吳巡龍，對質詰問權的保障與限制──釋字第五八二號解釋評析，月旦法學雜誌，第115期，2004年12月
吳巡龍，科學證據與測謊的證據能力，月旦法學教室，第38期，2005年12月
吳巡龍，對質詰問權與傳聞例外──美國與我國裁判發展之比較與評析，台灣法學雜誌，第119期，2009年10月1日
吳巡龍，鑑定與專家證人，台灣法學雜誌，第153期，2010年6月
吳巡龍，性侵案之專家證人，月旦法學教室，第166期，2016年8月
吳巡龍，鑑定參考資料，月旦法學教室，第190期，2018年8月
吳志正，醫事鑑定制度之改革芻議──以大陸地區及日本經驗為借鏡，東吳法律學報，第28卷第2期，2016年10月
吳耀宗，鑑定人在刑事訴訟程序的角色與權利義務，中央警察大學法學論集，第12期，2007年4月
李介民、唐淑美，我國司法實務有關DNA鑑定對刑事犯罪認定有效性之分析，東海大學法學研究，第21期，2004年12月
李佳玟，鑑定報告與傳聞例外──最高法院近年相關裁判之評釋，政大法學評論，第101期，2008年2月
李佳玟，逸失的勒贖錄音帶──評高院98矚上重更（11）第7號與最高法院100台上4177號刑事判決，月旦裁判時報，第17期，2012年10月
李佳玟，境外或跨境刑事案件中的境外證人供述證據：最高法院近十年來相關判決之評釋，臺大法學論叢，第43卷第2期，2014年6月
李承龍，犯罪現場調查與司法科技發展之研究，刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集，第16期，2013年12月
李承龍，建置國家級鑑識科學中心和實驗室之評估研究，犯罪防治研究專刊，第1期，2014年7月
李承龍，強化鑑識科學──評估建置國家級鑑識科學中心和實驗室之研究，刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集，第17期，2014年10月
李承龍、方圓、蔡佩芬，證物監管鏈之研究──重大案例談強化之道，刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集，第22期，2019年10月
李俊億，檢討冤獄才能避免冤獄──《江國慶冤死案的致命科學證據》作者獲不起訴處分之啟示，司法改革雜誌，第96期，2013年5月
李俊億，台灣刑事鑑識面臨之挑戰，人權會訊，第111期，2014年7月
李俊憶，槍傷鑑定及彈道分析於偵查中之運用──以鄭性澤案與蔡學良案為例，靜宜法學，第5期，2015年12月
李素華，臺灣專利侵權訴訟之實務現況：崩壞與亟待重生的智慧財產生態系統，月旦法學雜誌，第289期，2019年6月
李榮耕，傳聞證據之認定──最高法院九十九年臺上字第四○八號刑事判決，月旦裁判時報，第9期，2011年6月
李榮耕，刑事審判程序中數位證據的證據能力──以傳聞法則及驗真程序為主，臺北大學法學論叢，第91期，2014年9月
孟憲輝、吳耀宗、蔡佩潔，毛髮顯微特徵人別鑑定可信賴性之探討，警學叢刊，第43卷第6期，2013年5月
孟憲輝，槍彈鑑識在刑案偵審上的應用，人權會訊，第127期，2018年1月
林宜平，RCA訴訟與判決裡的科學證據，台灣公共衛生雜誌，第34卷第3期， 2015年6月
林裕順，專家證人vs. 鑑定人──概括選任鑑定之誤用與評析，月旦法學雜誌，第189期，2011年2月
林鈺雄，嚴格證明法則與直接審理原則－－最高法院相關裁判之綜合評釋，台灣本土法學雜誌，第5期，1999年12月
林鈺雄，九十二年度刑訴類實務見解回顧，台灣本土法學雜誌，第65期， 2004年12月
林鈺雄，對質詰問例外與傳聞例外之衝突與出路─歐洲人權法院與我國最高法院裁判之比較評析，台灣法學雜誌，第119期，2009年10月1日
林鈺雄，對質詰問之限制與較佳防禦手段優先性原則之運用：以證人保護目的與視訊訊問制度為中心，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第40卷第4期，2011年12月
林鈺雄，正視並彌補「司法不法」──鄭性澤死刑案評鑑報告，台灣法學雜誌，第293期，2016年4月14日
林輝煌，對質詰問權與傳聞法則──比較法之探索（上），法令月刊，第58卷第4期，2007年4月
林輝煌，對質詰問權與傳聞法則──比較法之探索（下），法令月刊，第58卷第5期，2007年5月
金孟華，以心理學研究建構我國指認證據的評價方式，中研院法學期刊，第13期，2013年9月
金孟華，鑑定人與對質詰問權的行使，月旦法學教室，第209期，2020年3月
施俊堯、徐健民，科學鑑定證據憑信性之探討──以DNA鑑定證據為例，東吳法律學報，第21卷第4期，2010年4月
張明偉，拒絕證言前之陳述與傳聞例外，全國律師，第10卷第3期，2006年3月
張明偉，初探美國陪審制，月旦刑事法評論，第2期，2016年9月
張明偉，電子證據之傳聞疑義，東吳法律學報，第29卷第3期，2018年1月
張瑋心，刑事訴訟法第161-1條之適用──以測謊之證據能力為中心，軍法專刊，第58卷第3期，2012年6月
張瑋心，專家證人──司法語言學家，軍法專刊，第60卷第5期，2014年10月
張瑋心，從加拿大最高法院R. v. Trochym案判決看催眠取得證言之容許性法則，檢察新論，第22期， 2017年7月
張麗卿，情況證據之研究，東海大學法學研究，第4期，1988年4月
張麗卿，醫療糾紛鑑定與對質詰問權，東吳法律學報，第20卷第2期，2008年10月
張麗卿，刑事醫療訴訟審判之實務與改革──兼評最高法院九十六年度台上字第四七九三號判決，月旦法學雜誌，第196期，2011年9月
莊忠進，論經驗法則，警專學報，第3卷第5期，2004年12月
陳志龍，刑事訴訟修正之原則方向探討──兼論證據法則之修正方向，月旦法學雜誌，第45期，1999年2月
陳受湛、林怡玲、吳佳翰、宋子莉，數位鑑識機構認證標準規範及操作程序之介紹與建議，資訊安全通訊，第21卷第1期，2015年1月
陳秉訓，從美國專利訴訟的專家證人制度談對我國專利侵權訴訟之借鑑，專利師，第20期，2015年1月
陳信行，司法正義與科學事實如何交會從Daubert爭議看法律、科學與社會，科技、醫療與社會，第12期，2011年4月
陳祐治，刑事訴訟與證據法系列之一──現行刑事證據規定亟待檢討，法令月刊，第59卷第2期，2008年2月
陳祐治，刑事訴訟與證據法系列之三──經驗法則及論理法則，法令月刊，第59卷第8期，2008年6月
陳祐治，專家證言與鑑定，檢察新論，第6期，2009年7月
陳運財，刑事程序中使用催眠之適法性及取得證據之容許性，月旦法學雜誌，第28期，1997年8月
陳運財，論刑事訴訟證據法則之修正──評司法院刑事訴訟法部分條文修正草案，律師雜誌，第255期，2000年12月
陳運財，刑事程序DNA鑑定之研究，成大法學，第5期，2003年6月
陳運財、邱仁楹，最高法院撤銷發回更審原因之檢討，東海大學法學研究，第22期，2005年6月
陳學德，改善臺灣民事醫療訴訟制度芻議，月旦民商法雜誌，第53期，2016年9月
曾淑瑜，經濟犯罪之事實認定與證據取捨──兼論財務報表虛偽隱匿之處罰，台灣法學雜誌，第196期，2012年3月15日
黃富源，司法心理學的議題與難題，檢察新論，第3期，2008年1月
黃朝義，犯罪偵查：第五講──勘驗與鑑定，月旦法學教室，第12期，2003年10月
黃榮堅，兇殘？異常？突發性失能之規範性判斷問題──評最高法院96年台上字第6233號判決，法令月刊，第60卷第9期，2009年9月
楊雲驊，近年刑事證據重要實務見解選評──程序從新與測謊結果的證據能力，月旦法學教室，第40期，2006年2月
葛謹，鑑定責任──英國Sally Clark案之省思，醫事法學，第19卷第1期，2012年6月
熊誦梅，因應二十一世紀的日本司法制度日本司法制度改革會議之建議摘要，法官協會雜誌，第4卷第2期，2002年12月
趙慶泠，德國聯邦專利法院及其技術法官制度，專利師，第19期，2014年10月
蔡墩銘，刑事證據與法科學，輔仁法學，第16期，1997年6月
蔡蕙芳，妨害電腦使用罪章：第三講──本章各罪所涉之訴訟法上問題，月旦法學教室，第132期，2013年10月
簡資修，科學證據與侵權行為法：美國有關邊得克汀訴訟的省思，人文及社會科學集刊，第11卷第4期，1999年12月
蘇友辰，建置國家級「刑事鑑識科學中心」之芻議，全國律師，第18卷第5期， 2014年5月
蘇凱平，以「高風險複雜系統理論」探討刑事司法系統中的「不可避免錯誤」──以冤案與死刑案件為中心，月旦法學雜誌，第278期，2018年7月

二、日文文獻
（一）書籍
三井 誠、河上和雄、中山善房、田邨正義編，刑事手続（上）（筑摩書房，1988年6月）
田官 裕、多田辰也，セミナー刑事手続法（捜査編）（啟正社，1990年7月）
（二）專書論文
加藤康榮，科学的鑑定－ポリグラフ検査，声紋鑑定－，刑事法セミナー〈4・5〉刑事訴訟法 上・下（信山社，1993年10月）
（三）期刊論文
小早川 義則，ポリグラフ検査結果の許容性，名城ロースクール・レビュー，第15期，2010年2月
山村武彦，ポリグラフ鑑定の実務的評価，判例タイムズ，第887期，1995年11月15日
平岡義博，科学鑑定と冤罪被害防止－科学捜査研究所の経験から，刑事弁護，第88期，2016年10月20日
白井万久，ポリグラフ検査結果の証明力，判例タイムズ，第741期，1991年1月1日。
光藤景皎，ポリグラフ・テストの法律問題，法律時報，第39卷第2期，1967年2月1日。
成瀬剛，科学的証拠の許容性（一），法学協会雑誌，第130卷第1期，2013年1月1日
高田昭正，ポリグラフ検査と被疑者の自己決定権，刑事弁護，第23期，2000年7月10日
笹倉香奈，科学的証拠と誤判，法律時報，第85卷第11期，2013年10月1日

三、英文文獻
（一）書籍
2 ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS: 1042–1189 (D.C. Douglas and G.W. Greenaway eds., 2d ed. 1981)
5 JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW (Little Brown, Boston, 1974)
C. S. ORWIN AND C. S. ORWIN, THE OPEN FIELDS (3rd ed. 1967)
COMMITTEE ON DNA FORENSIC SCIENCE: AN UPDATE, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL: THE EVALUATION OF FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE (National Academies Press 1996)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HANDBOOK OF FORENSIC SCIENCE (rev. ed. 2019)
HARRY COLLINS AND ROBERT EVANS, RETHINKING EXPERTISE (2007)
JAMES M. ANDERSON ET AL., THE UNREALIZED PROMISE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE –– AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF ITS PRODUCTION AND USE (May 14, 2018)
JOHN H. LANGBEIN, THE ORIGINS OF ADVERSARY CRIMINAL TRIAL (2003)
JOHN H. LANGBEIN ET AL., HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANGLOAMERICAN LEGAL INSTITUTIONS (2009)
JOSEPH K. BLITZSTEIN AND JESSICA HWANG, INTRODUCTION TO PROBABILITY (2015)
JOSEPH SANDERS, BENDECTIN ON TRIAL: A STUDY OF MASS TORT LITIGATION (1998)
LLOYD DIXON AND BRIAN GILL, CHANGES IN THE STANDARDS FOR ADMITTING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL CIVIL CASES SINCE THE DAUBERT DECISION (2001)
NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE, OPEN SCIENCE BY DESIGN: REALIZING A VISION FOR 21ST CENTURY RESEARCH (National Academies Press 2018)
NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE, REPRODUCIBILITY AND REPLICABILITY IN SCIENCE (National Academies Press 2019)
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW DIVISION, A REVIEW OF THE FBI'S HANDLING OF THE BRANDON MAVFIELD CASE (2006)
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW DIVISION, A REVIEW OF THE FBI’S PROGRESS IN RESPONDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON THE FINGERPRINT MISIDENTIFICATION IN THE BRANDON MAYFIELD CASE (2011)
STEPHEN T. GOUDGE, INQUIRY INTO PEDIATRIC FORENSIC PATHOLOGY IN ONTARIO (2008)
TAL GOLAN, LAWS OF MEN AND LAWS OF NATURE: THE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERT TESTIMONY IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA (2004)
THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES, STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES: A PATH FORWARD (2009)
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL COURTS: ENSURING SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF FEATURE–COMPARISON METHODS (2016)
（二）專書論文
Alexander Bird, When Is There a Group That Knows? Distributed Cognition, Scientific Knowledge, and the Social Epistemic Subject, in ESSAYS IN COLLECTIVE EPISTEMOLOGY 42–63 (Jennifer Lackey ed., 2015)
David Goodstein and Frank J. Gilloon, How Science Works, in REFERENCE MANUAL ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE 37–54 (3rd ed. 2011)
Margaret A. Berger, The Admissibility of Expert Testimony, in REFERENCE MANUAL ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE 11–36 (3rd ed. 2011)
（三）期刊論文
A. Leah Vickers, Daubert, Critique and Interpretation: What Empirical Studies Tell Us About the Application of Daubert, 40 U.S.F. L. REV. 109–148 (2005)
Adam B. Shniderman, Prosecutors Respond to Calls for Forensic Science Reform: More Sharks in Dirty Water, 126 YALE L.J. F. 348–361 (2017)
Andrea Roth, Machine Testimony, 126 YALE L. J. 1972–2053 (2017)
Andrew J. Wistrich et al., Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 1251–1346 (2005)
Andrew Jurs and Scott DeVito, The Stricter Standard: An Empirical Assessment of Daubert's Effect on Civil Defendants, 62 CATH. U. L. REV. 675–732 (2013)
Andrew Jurs, Judicial Analysis of Complex & Cutting–Edge Science in the Daubert Era: Epidemiologic Risk Assessment as a Test Case for Reform Strategies, 42 CONN. L. REV. 49–100 (2009)
Andrew Taslitz, Catharsis, the Confrontation Clause, and Expert Testimony, 22 CAP. U. L. REV. 103–144 (1993)
Auqib Hamid Lone and Roohie Naaz Mir, Forensic-chain Ethereum Blockchain Based Digital Forensics Chain Of Custody, 1 SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CYBER SECURITY JOURNAL 21-27 (2019)
Barbara Pfeffer Billauer, Daubert Debunked: A History of Legal Retrogression and the Need to Reassess “Scientific Admissibility,” 21 SUFFOLK J. TRIAL & APP. ADVOC. 1–57 (2016)
Bennett L. Gershman, Misuse of Scientific Evidence by Prosecutors, 28 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 17–42 (2003)
Bert Black, A Unified Theory of Scientific Evidence, 56 FORDHAML L. REV. 595–696 (1988)
Brandon L. Garrett and M. Chris Fabricant, The Myth of the Reliability Test, 86 FORDHAM L. REV. 1559–1600 (2018)
Brandon L. Garrett and Peter J. Neufeld, Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions, 95 VA. L. REV. 1–97 (2009)
Brian A. Nosek, Jeffrey R. Spies, and Matt Motyl, Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability, 7 PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 615–631 (2012)
Bruce A. Green, Access to Criminal Justice: Where Are the Prosecutors, 3 TEX. A&M L. REV. 515–536 (2016)
Carol Krafka et al., Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials, 8 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL'Y & L. 309–332 (2002)
Carole McCartney and Emmanuel Nsiah Amoakoh, Accreditation of forensic science service providers, 65 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC AND LEGAL MEDICINE 143–145 (2019)
Craig M. Cooley, Nurturing Forensic Science: How Appropriate Funding and Government Oversight Can Further Strengthen the Forensic Science Community, 17 TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV. 441-480 (2011)
D. Michael Risinger, Navigating Expert Reliability: Are Criminal Standards of Certainty Being Left on the Dock, 64 ALB. L. REV. 99–152 (2000)
Dale A. Nance, Two Concepts of Reliability, 5 J. PHIL. SCI. & L. 1–12 (2005)
Dan Quayle, Civil Justice Reform, 41 AM. U. L. REV. 559–570 (1992)
Daniel A. Krauss and Bruce D. Sales, The Effects of Clinical and Scientific Expert Testimony on Juror Decision Making in Capital Sentencing, 7 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL'Y & L 267–310 (2001)
Daniel C. Murrie et al, Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them, 24 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 1889–1897 (2013)
Daniel J. Capra, Foreword Symposium on Forensic Expert Testimony, Daubert, and Rule 702, 86 FORDHAM L. REV. 1459–1461 (2018)
Daniele Fanelli, How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta–Analysis of Survey Data, 4 PLOS ONE 1–11 (2009)
David E. Bernstein and Eric G. Lasker, Defending Daubert: It's Time to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 57 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1–48 (2015)
David E. Bernstein, Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 IOWA L. REV. 451–490 (2008)
David E. Bernstein, Frye, Frye, Again: The Past, Present, and Future of the General Acceptance Test, 41 JURIMETRICS 385–408 (2001)
David E. Bernstein, The Unfinished Daubert Revolution, 10 ENGAGE: J. FEDERALIST SOC'Y PRAC. GROUPS 35–38 (2009)
David H. Kaye et al., Statistics in the Jury Box: How Jurors Respond to Mitochondrial DNA Match Probabilities, 4 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 797–834 (2007)
David H. Kaye, Ultracrepidarianism in Forensic Science: The Hair Evidence Debacle, 72 WASH. & LEE L. REV. ONLINE 227–254 (2015)
David H. Kaye, Digging into the Foundations of Evidence Law, 115 MICH. L. REV. 915–934 (2017)
David H. Kaye, How Daubert and its Progeny Have Failed Criminalistics Evidence and a Few Things the Judiciary Could Do About It, 86 FORDHAM L. REV. 1639–1659 (2018)
David L. Faigman et al., Check Your Crystal Ball at the Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring the Past, Understanding the Present, and Worrying About the Future of Scientific Evidence, 15 CARDOZO L. REV. 1799–1836 (1994)
David L. Faigman et al., Gatekeeping Science: Using the Structure of Scientific Research to Distinguish between Admissibility and Weight in Expert Testimony, 110 NW. U. L. REV. 859–904 (2016)
David M. Flores et al., Examining the Effects of the Daubert Trilogy on Expert Evidence Practices in Federal Civil Court: An Empirical Analysis, 34 S. ILL. U. L. J. 533–564 (2010)
David M. Paciocco, Unplugging Jukebox Testimony in an Adversarial System: Strategies for Changing the Tune on Partial Experts, 34 QUEEN'S L. J. 565–610 (2009)
David Paciocco, Taking a “Goudge” out of Bluster and Blarney: an “Evidence–Based Approach” to Expert Testimony, 13 CANADIAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 135–157 (2009)
David V. Budescu and Timothy R. Johnson, A Model–Based Approach for the Analysis of the Calibration of Probability Judgments, 6 JUDGMENT & DECISION MAKING 857–869 (2011)
Deborah Paruch, Testimonial Statements, Reliability, and the Sole Or Decisive Evidence Rule A Comparative Look at the Right of Confrontation in the United States, Canada, and Europe, 67 CATH. U. L. REV. 105-164 (2018)
Deirdre Dwyer, (Why) Are Civil and Criminal Expert Evidence Different, 43 TULSA L. REV. 381–396 (2007)
Edward J. Imwinkelried and James R. McCall, Issues Once Moot The Other Evidentiary Objections to the Admission of Exculpatory Polygraph Examinations, 32 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 1045-1082 (1997)
Edward J. Imwinkelried, Computer Source Code: A Source of the Growing Controversy over the Reliability of Automated Forensic Techniques, 66 DEPAUL L. REV. 97–132 (2016)
Edward K. Cheng and Albert H. Yoon, Does Frye or Daubert Matter? A Study of Scientific Admissibility Standards, 91 VA. L. REV. 471–514 (2005)
Edward K. Cheng and G. Alexander Nunn, Beyond the Witness Bringing A Process Perspective to Modern Evidence Law, 976 TEX. L. REV. 1–50 (2019)
Elizabeth B.Ford, Lie detection: Historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions, 29 INT. J. LAW PSYCHIATRY 159–177 (2006)
Elizabeth S. Anderson, Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony, 8 EPISTEME 144–164 (2011)
Eric S. Lander, Fixing Rule 702: The PCAST Report and Steps to Ensure the Reliability of Forensic Feature–Comparison Methods in the Criminal Courts, 86 FORDHAM L. REV. 1661–1680 (2018)
Erin Murphy, Neuroscience and the Civil/Criminal Daubert Divide, 85 FORDHAM L. REV. 619–640 (2016)
Gary Edmond and David Mercer, Trashing “Junk Science,” 998 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 3–33 (1998)
Gary Edmond and Joëlle Vuille, Comparing the Use of Forensic Science Evidence in Australia, Switzerland, and The United States: Transcending the Adversarial–Nonadversarial Dichotomy, 54 JURIMETRICS 221–276 (2014)
Gary Edmond, Whigs in Court: Historical Problems with Expert Evidence, 14 YALE J.L. & HUMAN. 123–176 (2002)
Gary L. Wells, Naked Statistical Evidence of Liability: Is Subjective Probability Enough, 62 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 739–752 (1992)
George Fisher, The Jury's Rise as Lie Detector, 107 YALE L.J. 575–713 (1997)
Glen Cook and Charles Mitschow, Beyond the Polygraph Deception Detection and the Autonomic Nervous System, 36 FEDERAL PRACTITIONER 316–321 (2019)
H. Melbourn et al., Mandatory certification of forensic science practitioners in the United States A supportive perspective, 1 FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL SYNERGY 161–169 (2019)
Harmon M. Hosch, A Comparison of Three Studies of the Influence of Expert Testimony on Jurors, 4 L. & HUM. BEH. 297–302 (1980)
I.W. Evett et al., Finding the Way Forward for Forensic Science in the U.S.— A Commentary on the PCAST Report, 278 FORENSIC SCI. INT’L 16–23 (2017)
James E. Starrs, Frye v. United States Restructured and Revitalized A Proposal to Amend Federal Evidence Rule 702, 26 JURIMETRICS J. 249–259 (1986)
James M. Sabovich, Petition Without Prejudice: Against the Fraud Exception to Noerr–Pennington Immunity from the Toxic Tort Perspective, 17 PENN. ST. ENVTL. L. REV. 1–54 (2008)
James R. Dillon, Expertise on Trial, 19 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 247–312 (2018)
James R. McCall, Misconceptions and Reevaluation–Polygraph Admissibility after Rock and Daubert, 1996 U. ILL. L. REV. 363–422 (1996)
Jan Beyea and Daniel Berger, Scientific Misconceptions Among Daubert Gatekeepers: The Need for Reform of Expert Review Procedures Complex Litigation at the Millennium, 64 L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 327–372 (2001)
Jane Campbell Moriarty, “Misconvictions,” Science, and the Ministers of Justice, 86 NEB. L. REV. 1–42 (2007)
Jane Campbell Moriarty, Will History Be Servitude?: The NAS Report on Forensic Science and the Role of the Judiciary, 2010 UTAH L. REV. 299–326 (2010)
Jason M. Chin and Helena Likwornik, R v Bingley and the Importance of Scientifically Guided Legal Analysis, 43 QUEEN'S L.J. 33–52 (2017)
Jason M. Chin, Abbey Road: The (Ongoing) Journey to Reliable Expert Evidence, 96 CAN. B. REV. 422–459 (2018)
Jason M. Chin, Bethany Growns, and David T. Mellor, Improving Expert Evidence The Role of Open Science and Transparency, 50 OTTAWA LAW REVIEW 1–48 (2019), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3345225
Jeff L. Lewin, Calabresi's Revenge? Junk Science in the Work of Peter Huber, 21 HOFSTRA L. REV. 183–204 (1992)
Jennifer L. Groscup et al., The Effects of Daubert on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in State and Federal Criminal Cases, 8 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL'Y & L. 339–372 (2002)
Jennifer L. Mnookin, The Image of Truth: Photographic Evidence and the Power of Analogy, 10 YALE J.L. & HUMAN. 1–74 (1998)
Jennifer L. Mnookin, Idealizing Science and Demonizing Experts: An Intellectual History of Expert Evidence, 52 VILL. L. REV. 763–802 (2007)
Jennifer L. Mnookin, Expert Evidence, Partisanship, and Epistemic Competence, 73 BROOK. L. REV. 1009–1033 (2008)
Jennifer Mnookin and David Kaye, Expert Evidence and the Confrontation Clause, 2012 THE SUPREME COURT REVIEW 99-159 (2013)
Jeremy A. Blumenthal, A Wipe of the Hands, A Lick of the Lips: The Validity of Demeanor Evidence in Assessing Witness Credibility, 72 NEB. L. REV. 1157–1204 (1993)
Jessica Gabel and Karyn Heavenrich, Reigning in the Wild West: The Necessary Outcomes and Inevitable Pitfalls of Reforming Forensic Science, 24 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 81–104 (2014)
Jill Lepore, On Evidence: Proving Frye as a Matter of Law, Science, and History, 124 YALE L. J. 1092–1159 (2015)
Jim Hilbert, The Disappointing History of Science in the Courtroom, 71 OKLA. L. REV. 759–821 (2019)
Joel N. Bodansky, The Abolition of the Party–Witness Disqualification: An Historical Survey, 70 KY. L.J. 91–130 (1981)
John H. Langbein, The German Advantage in Civil Procedure, 52 CHI. L. REV. 823–866 (1985)
John H. Langbein, The Historical Foundations of the Law of Evidence: A View from the Ryder Sources, 96 COLUM. L. REV. 1168–1202 (1996)
John H. Wigmore, The History of the Hearsay Rule, 17 HARV. L. REV. 437-458 (1904)
John Monahan and Laurens Walker, Social Authority: Obtaining, Evaluating, and Establishing Social Science in Law, 134 U. PA. L. REV. 477–518 (1986)
John O. McGinnis and Russell G. Pearce, The Great Disruption: How Machine Intelligence Will Transform the Role of Lawyers in the Delivery of Legal Services, 82 FORDHAM L. REV. 3041–3066 (2014)
John Synnott, David Dietzel and Maria Ioannou, A review of the polygraph history, methodology and current status, 1 CRIME PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW 59–83 (2015)
Joseph P. Simmons, Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn, False–Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant, 22 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 1359–1366 (2011)
Joseph Sanders, The Bendectin Litigation: A Case Study in the Life Cycle of Mass Torts, 43 HASTINGS L.J. 301–418 (1992)
Joseph Sanders, Applying Daubert Inconsistently? Proof of Individual Causation in Toxic Tort and Forensic Cases, 75 BROOK. L. REV. 1367–1404 (2010)
Joseph Sanders, Utterly Ineffective: Do Courts Have a Role in Improving the Quality of Forensic Expert Testimony, 38 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 547–570 (2010)
Jules Epstein, The National Commission on Forensic Science: Impactful or Ineffectual, 48 SETON HALL. REV. 743–772 (2018)
Julie A. Seaman, A Tale of Two Dauberts, 47 GA. L. REV. 889–922 (2013)
Keith A. Findley, Innocents at Risk: Adversary Imbalance, Forensic Science, and the Search for Truth, 38 SETON HALL LR. 893-973 (2008)
Kenneth J. Chesebro, Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship, 42 AM. U. L. REV. 1637–1726 (1993)
Laurence H. Tribe, Triangulating Hearsay, 87 HARV. L. REV. 957–974 (1974)
Learned Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony, 15 HARV. L. REV. 40–58 (1901)
Leif D. Nelson et al, Psychology’s Renaissance, 69 ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY 511–534 (2018)
Leonard Saxe and Gershon Ben-Shakhar, Admissibility of polygraph tests The application of scientific standards post-Daubert, 5 PSYCHOLOGY, PUBLIC POLICY, AND LAW 203–223 (1999)
Lora M. Levett and Margaret Bull Kovera, The Effectiveness of Opposing Expert Witnesses for Educating Jurors about Unreliable Expert Evidence, 32 L. & HUM. BEH. 363–374 (2008)
M. Chris Fabricant and Tucker Carrington, The Shifted Paradigm: Forensic Science’s Overdue Evolution from Magic to Law, 4 VA. J. CRIM. L. 1–115 (2016)
Mallory C. Kidwell et al, Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low–Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency, 14 PLOS BIOL. 1–15 (2016)
Mara L. Merlino et al., Meeting the Challenges of the Daubert Trilogy: Refining and Redefining the Reliability of Forensic Evidence, 43 TULSA L. REV. 417–446 (2007)
Marc S. Klein, Expert Testimony in Pharmaceutical Product Liability Actions, 45 FOOD DRUG COSM. L.J. 393–442 (1990)
Marcus R Munafò et al, A Manifesto for Reproducible Science, 21 NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 1–9 (2017)
Margaret A. Berger, Upsetting the Balance Between Adverse Interests: The Impact of the Supreme Court's Trilogy on Expert Testimony in Toxic Tort Litigation, 64 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 289–326 (2001)
Margaret Bull Kovera et al., Does Expert Psychological Testimony Inform or Influence Juror Decision Making? A Social Cognitive Analysis, 82 J. APP. PSYCHOL. 178–191 (1997)
Margaret Bull Kovera, Bradley D. McAuliff and Kellye S. Hebert, Reasoning About Scientific Evidence: Effects of Juror Gender and Evidence Quality on Juror Decisions in a Hostile Work Environment Case, 84 J. APP. PSYCHOL. 362–375 (1999)
Margaret Gilbert, Modelling Collective Belief, 73 SYNTHESE 185–204 (1987)
Marilee M. Kapsa and Carl B. Meyer, Scientific Experts: Making Their Testimony More Reliable, 35 CAL. W. L. REV. 313–332 (1999)
Megan A. Yarnall, Dueling Scientific Experts: Is Australia’s Hot Tub Method a Viable Solution for the American Judiciary, 88 OR. L. REV. 311–340 (2009)
Melissa Lane, When the Experts Are Uncertain: Scientific Knowledge and the Ethics of Democratic Judgment, 11 EPISTEME 97–118 (2014)
Michael D. Green, Expert Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances Litigation: The Legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin Litigation, 86 NW. U. L. REV. 643–699 (1992)
Michael H. Gottesman, From Barefoot to Daubert to Joiner: Triple Play or Double Error, 40 ARIZ. L. REV. 753-780 (1998)
Michael J. Saks and David L. Faigman, Expert Evidence After Daubert, 1 ANN. REV. L. & SOC. SCI. 105–130 (2005)
Michael J. Saks and David L. Faigman, Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It, 4 ANNUAL REVIEW OF LAW & SOCIAL SCIENCE 149–171 (2008)
Michael J. Saks, Judging Admissibility, 35 J. CORP. L. 135-157 (2009)
Michael S. Pardo, Confrontation after Scalia and Kennedy, 70 ALA. L. REV. 757-784 (2019)
Ming-Woei Chang, Reforming the Expert Evidence System in Taiwan Criminal Justice: Lessons from the United States, 102 NTU LAW REVIEW 255-287 (2015)
Munia Jabbar, Overcoming Daubert's Shortcomings in Criminal Trials: Making the Error Rate the Primary Factor in Daubert's Validity Inquiry, 85 N.Y.U. L. REV. 2034–2064 (2010)
Nancy Steblay et al., The Impact on Juror Verdicts of Judicial Instruction to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Meta–Analysis, 30 L. & HUM. BEH. 469–492 (2006)
Neil Vidmar and Shari Seidman Diamond, Juries and Expert Evidence, 66 BROOK. L. REV. 1121–1180 (2001)
O. Kahn-Freund, On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law, 37 MOD. L. REV. 1-27 (1974)
Pamela A. Wilk, Expert Testimony on Rape Trauma Syndrome: Admissibility and Effective Use in Criminal Rape Prosecution, 33 AM. U. L. REV. 417–462 (1984)
Paul C. Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half–Century Later, 80 COLUM. L. REV. 1197–1250 (1980).
Paul C. Giannelli, “Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases, 84 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 105–128 (1993)
Paul C. Giannelli, Chain of Custody, 32 CRIMINAL LAW BULLETIN 447-465 (1996)
Paul C. Giannelli, Polygraph Evidence Post-Daubert, 49 HASTINGS L.J. 895-924 (1998)
Paul C. Giannelli, The Supreme Court’s “Criminal” Daubert Cases, 33 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1071–1112 (2003)
Paul C. Giannelli, Daubert Challenges to Fingerprints, 42 CRIM. L. BULL. 624–642 (2006)
Paul C. Giannelli, Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science: The Need to Regulate Crime Labs, 86 N.C. L. REV. 163-236 (2007)
Paul C. Giannelli, Regulating DNA Laboratories: The New Gold Standard, 69 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 617–638 (2014)
R.B. Goheen, Peasant Politics? Village Community and the Crown in Fifteenth Century England, 96 AM. HIST. REV. 42–62 (1991)
Rachel E. Barkow and Mark Osler, Designed to Fail: The President's Deference to the Department of Justice in Advancing Criminal Justice Reform, 59 WM. & MARY L. REV. 387–474 (2017)
Richard A. Posner, The Law and Economics of the Economic Expert Witness, 13 J. ECON. PERSP. 91–99 (1999)
Richard A. Wise, Clifford S. Fishman and Martin A. Safer, How to Analyze the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony in A Criminal Case, 42 CONN. L. REV. 435–514 (2009)
Richard C. Waites and David A. Giles, Are Jurors Equipped to Decide the Outcome of Complex Cases, 29 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 19–64 (2005)
Richard Marcus, Reexamining the Bendectin Litigation Story, 83 IOWAL L. REV. 231–254 (1997)
Robert D. Myers et al., Complex Scientific Evidence and the Jury, 83 JUDICATURE 150–156 (1999)
Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1–78 (1989)
Roger Giner–Sorolla, Science or Art? How Aesthetic Standards Grease the Way Through the Publication Bottleneck but Undermine Science, 7 PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 562–571 (2012)
Ronald J. Allen and Joseph S. Miller, The Common Law Theory of Experts: Deference or Education, 87 NW. U. L. REV. 1131–1147 (1993)
Ronald J. Coleman and Paul F. Rothstein, A Game of Katso and Mouse Current Theories for Getting Forensic Analysis Evidence Past the Confrontation Clause, 57 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 27-56 (2020)
Russell D. Covey, Suspect Evidence and Coalmine Canaries, 55 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 537–584 (2018)
Samuel R. Gross, Expert Evidence, 1991 WIS. L. REV. 1113–1232 (1991)
Scott Brewer, Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process, 107 YALE L.J. 1535–1681 (1998)
Simon A. Cole and Gary Edmond, Science Without Precedent: The Impact of the National Research Council Report on the Admissibility and Use of Forensic Science Evidence in the United States, 4 BRIT. J. AM. LEGAL STUD. 585–618 (2015)
Simon A. Cole, Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and Back Again, 41 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1189–1276 (2004)
Sophia I. Gatowski et al., Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post–Daubert World, 25 L. & HUM. BEH. 433–458 (2001)
Stephanie Domitrovich, Mara L. Merlino and James T. Richardson, State Trial Judge Use of Court Appointed Experts: Survey Results and Comparisons, 50 JURIMETRICS 371–390 (2010)
Stephanie Tai, Uncertainty about Uncertainty: The Impact of Judicial Decisions on Assessing Scientific Uncertainty, 11 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 671–728 (2009)
Susan D. Rozelle, Daubert, Schmaubert: Criminal Defendants and the Short End of the Science Stick, 43 TULSA L. REV. 597–608 (2007)
Susan Haack, An Epistemologist in the Bramble–Bush: At the Supreme Court with Mr. Joiner, 26 J. HEALTH POL. POL'Y & L. 217–248 (2001)
Susan Haack, Mind the Analytical Gap! Tracing a Fault Line in Daubert, 61 WAYNE L. REV. 653–690 (2016)
Susan Haack, What’s Wrong with Litigation–Driven Science? An Essay in Legal Epistemology, 38 SETON HALL L. REV. 1053–1084 (2008)
Valerie P. Hans, Judges, Juries, and Scientific Evidence, 16 J.L. & POL'Y 19–46 (2007)
Vidur Dhawan, Admissibility of Forensic Evidence in Courts United States Purview, 7 CT. UNCOURT 29-33 (2020)
Vincent J. Cogliano et al., The Science and Practice of Carcinogen Identification and Evaluation, 112 ENVTL. HEALTH PERSP. 1269–1274 (2004)
W. Kip Viscusi, Corporate Risk Analysis: A Reckless Act, 52 STAN. L. REV. 547–598 (2000)
William G. Iacono and Gershon Ben-Shakhar, Current Status of Forensic Lie Detection With the Comparison Question Technique An Update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences Report on Polygraph Testing, 43 LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 86-98 (2019)