Beecher-Monas, E. (2009). Reality bites: The illusion of science in bite-mark evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 30, 1369-1410.

Bonventre, C. L. (2015).  The implementation of judicial policy in crime laboratories: An examination of the impact of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (Doctoral dissertation).  Retrieved from ProQuest.

Budowle et al. (2009). A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(4), 798-809.

Butt, L. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions – Commentary by a forensic examiner. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 59-60.

Byrd, J. S. (2006). Confirmation bias, ethics, and mistakes in forensics. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(4), 511–525.

Christensen, A. M., Crowder, C. M., Ousley, S. D., & Houck, M. M. (2014). Error and its meaning in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59(1), 123-126.

Cole, S. A. (2006). The prevalence and potential causes of wrongful conviction by fingerprint evidence. Golden Gate University Law Review, 37(1), 39-106.

Cole, S. A. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Thinking about expert evidence as expert testimony. Villanova Law Review, 52, 803.

Cole, S. A. (2012). Forensic science and wrongful convictions: From exposer to contributor to corrector. New England Law Review, 46, 711.

Collins, J. M., & Jarvis, J. (2009). The wrongful conviction of forensic science. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 1, 17-31.

Cooley, C. M., & Oberfield, G. S. (2007). Increasing forensic evidence’s reliability and minimizing wrongful convictions: Applying Daubert isn’t the only problem. Tulsa Law Review, 43, 285-380.

Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Peron A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74-78.

Dror, I. E. & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science and Justice, 51(4), 204-208.

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.

Eastwood, J. & Caldwell, J. (2015). Educating jurors about forensic evidence: Using an expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60, 1523-1528.

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.

Garrett, B. L. & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95, 1.

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. (2007). Wrongful convictions and forensic science: The need to regulate crime labs. North Carolina Law Review, 86, 163.

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.

Goldsmith, A.D. (2018). The reliability of the adversarial system to assess the scientific validity of forensic evidence. Fordham Law Review, 86, 16-23.

Goldstein, R. M. (2011). Improving forensic science through state oversight. Texas Law Review, 90(1), 225-258.

Hamer, D. A. (2019). Forensic science evidence, wrongful convictions and adversarial process. Queensland Law Journal, 38. 

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.

Jonakait, R. N. (1991). Forensic science: The need for regulation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 4, 109-191.

Jurs, A. W. (2016). Expert prevalence, persuasion, and price: What trial participants really think about experts. Indiana Law Journal, 91, 353-391.

Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42-52.

Krishan, K., Kanchan, T., & Garg, A. K. (2015). Dental evidence in forensic identification: An overview, methodology, and present status. Open Dentistry Journal, 9, 250-256.

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.

Meterko, V. (2016).  Strengths and limitations of forensic science: What DNA exonerations have taught us and where to go from here.  West Virginia Law Review, 119(2), 639-649.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998).  Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.  Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.

Oliva, J. D., & Beety, V. E. (2017). Discovering Forensic Fraud. Northwestern University Law Review, 112(1), 121–138.

Peterson, J. L. & Leggett, A. S. (2007). The evolution of forensic science: Progress amid the pitfalls. Stetson Law Review, 36, 622.

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. (2010). Whose fault?—Daubert, the NAS report, and the notion of error in forensic science. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 38(2), 519.

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.

Roach, K. (2009). Forensic science and  miscarriages of justice: Some lessons from comparative experience. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 50(1), 67-92.

Saks, M. J. & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309(5736), 892-895.

Scherr, K. C., & Dror, I. E. (2020). Ingroup biases of forensic experts: perceptions of wrongful convictions versus exonerations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1-16.

Stevens, D. J. (2008). Forensic science, wrongful convictions, and American prosecutor discretion. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 31-51.

Thompson, W. C. (2008). Beyond bad apples: Analyzing the role of forensic science in wrongful convictions. Southwestern Law Review, 37, 971.

Thompson, S. G. (2015). Curbing wrongful convictions through independent forensic laboratories. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Thomson, M.A. (1974). Bias and quality control in forensic science: A cause for concern. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 19(3), 504–517.