MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY; VOLS. 1-5 (West eds. published annually 2007 – 2020) (with Jeremy A. Blumenthal, Edward K. Cheng, Jennifer L. Mnookin, Erin E. Murphy & Joseph Sanders).
CONSTITUTIONAL FICTIONS: A UNIFIED THEORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS (Oxford Univ. Press 2008).
MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: STANDARDS, STATISTICS, AND RESEARCH METHODS (Thomson West, student ed. 2008) (with Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders & Edward K. Cheng).
MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: FORENSICS (Thomson West 2008, student ed. 2008) (with Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders & Edward K. Cheng).
MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: FORENSICS (Thomson West 2006, student ed. 2006) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders & Edward K. Cheng).
MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: STANDARDS, STATISTICS, AND RESEARCH METHODS (Thomson West 2006, student ed. 2006) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders & Edward K. Cheng).
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Thomson West 2006-2007 ed. 2006).
MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, VOLS. 1-4 (Thomson West 2006-2007 ed. 2006) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, Joseph Sanders & Edward K. Cheng).
MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, VOLS. 1-4 (Thomson West 2005; 2006 ed. 2005) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks & Joseph Sanders).
ANNOTATED REFERENCE MANUAL ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, SECOND (Thomson West 2005; 2006 ed. 2005) (with Michael J. Saks, David H. Kaye & Joseph Sanders).
ANNOTATED REFERENCE MANUAL ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, SECOND (Thomson West, ed. 2004) (with Michael J. Saks, David H. Kaye & Joseph Sanders).
LABORATORY OF JUSTICE: THE SUPREME COURT’S 200 YEAR STRUGGLE TO INTEGRATE SCIENCE AND THE LAW (Henry Holt 2004).
SCIENCE IN THE LAW: STANDARDS, STATISTICS AND RESEARCH ISSUES (West Group student ed. 2002) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks & Joseph Sanders).
SCIENCE IN THE LAW: FORENSIC SCIENCE ISSUES (West Group student ed. 2002) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks & Joseph Sanders).
SCIENCE IN THE LAW: SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE ISSUES (West Group, student ed. 2002) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks & Joseph Sanders).
MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, VOL. 3 (West Group 1999) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks & Joseph Sanders).
LEGAL ALCHEMY: THE USE AND MISUSE OF SCIENCE IN THE LAW (W.H. Freeman & Co. 1999).
MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, VOLS. 1-2 (West Group 1997) (Supps. 1999–2001) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks & Joseph Sanders).
MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, VOLS. 1-4 (West Group 2d ed. 2002) (Supp. 2003) (with David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks & Joseph Sanders).
Journal Articles
Scientific Guidelines for Evaluating the Validity of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods, 120 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. e2301843120 (2023) (with Nicholas Scurich & Thomas D. Albright).
Gatekeeping Science: Using the Structure of Scientific Research to Distinguish Between Admissibility and Weight in Expert Testimony, 110 Nw. U. L. Rev. 859 (2016) (with Christopher Slobogin & John Monahan).
Link, SSRN
On the Causes of Effects Response to Pearl, 44 Soc. Methods & Res. 165 (2015) (with Philip A. Dawid).
Link
Where Law and Science (and Religion) Meet, 93 U. Tex. L. Rev. 1659 (2015).
Link
Fitting Science into Legal Contexts: Assessing Effects of Causes or Causes of Effects?, 43 Soc. Methods & Res. 359 (2014) (with Stephen Feinberg & Philip Dawid).
Link
Authors’ Response to Comments on Fitting Science Into Legal Contexts, 43 Soc. Methods & Res. 416 (2014) (with A. Philip Dawid & Stephen E. Fienberg).
Organized Common Sense: Some Lessons from Judge Jack Weinstein’s Uncommonly Sensible Approach to Expert Evidence, 64 DePaul L. Rev. 421 (2014) (with Claire Lesikar).
Link
Promises, Promises for Neuroscience and Law, 24 Current Biology R861 (2014) (with Joshua W. Buckholtz).
Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony, 81 U. Chi. L. Rev. 417 (2014) (with John Monahan & Christopher Slobogin).
Link
Wading into the Daubert Tide: Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 64 Hastings L.J. 1665 (2013) (with Edward J. Imwinkelried).
Link, SSRN
Neuroscientists in Court, 14 Nature Reviews Neuroscience 730 (2013) (with Owen D. Jones; Anthony D. Wagner & Marcus E. Raichle).
Link
The Daubert Revolution and the Birth of Modernity: Managing Scientific Evidence in the Age of Science, 46 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 893 (2013).
Link, SSRN
Implicit Bias in the Courtroom, 59 UCLA L. Rev. 1124 (2012) (with Jerry Kang and Mark W. Bennett and Devon W. Carbado and Pamela Casey and Nilanjana Dasgupta and Rachel D. Godsil and Anthony G. Greenwald and Justin D. Levinson and Jennifer Mnookin).
Link, SSRN
Evidentiary Incommensurability: A Preliminary Exploration of the Problem of Reasoning from General Scientific Data to Individualized Legal Decision-Making, 75 Brook. L. Rev. 1115 (2010).
Link
Defining Empirical Frames of Reference in Constitutional Cases: Unraveling the As-Applied Versus Facial Distinction in Constitutional Law, 36 Hastings Const. L.Q. 631 (2009).
Link
Evidence Code Section 802: The Neglected Key to Rationalizing the California Law of Expert Testimony, 42 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 427 (2009) (with Edward Imwinkelreid).
Link, SSRN
A Matter of Fit: The Law of Discrimination and the Science of Implicit Bias, 59 Hastings L.J. 1389 (2008) (with Nilanjana Dasgupta and Cecilia Ridgeway).
Link
Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It, 4 Ann. Rev. L. Soc. Sci. 149 (2008).
Link, SSRN
Scientific Realism in Constitutional Law, 73 Brook. L. Rev. 1067 (2008).
Link
Anecdotal Forensics.Phrenology.and Other Abject Lessons from the History of Science, 59 Hastings L.J. 979 (2008).
Link
Admissibility Regimes: The ‘Opinion Rule’ and Other Oddities and Exceptions to Scientific Evidence.the Scientific Revolution.and Common Sense, 36 Sw. U. L. Rev. 699 (2008).
Link
Judges as “Amateur Scientists”, 86 B.U. L. Rev. 1207 (2006).
Link
Amicus Brief of Constitutional Law Professors David L. Faigman and Ashutosh A. Bhagwat.et al. in the Case of Gonzales v. Carhart, 34 Hastings Const. L.Q. 69 (2006) (with Ashutosh Bhagwat & Kathryn Davis).
Link, SSRN
The Reliability of Latent Print Individualization: Brief of Amici Curiae submitted on Behalf of Scientists and Scholars by The New England Innocence Project, Commonwealth v. Patterson, 42 Crim. L. Bull. Art. 2 (2006) (with David M. Siegel and Mark Acree and Robert Bradley et al.).
Expert Evidence After Daubert, 1 Ann. Rev. L. Soc. Sci. 105 (2005) (with Michael J. Saks).
Link
Psychological Evidence at the Dawn of the Law’s Scientific Age, 56 Ann. Rev. Psychol. 631 (2005) (with John Monahan).
The Limits of the Polygraph, 20 Issues Sci. & Tech. 40 (2003) (with Stephen E. Fienberg & Paul C. Stern).
Link
Making Moral Judgments Through Behavioural Science: The ‘Substantial Lack of Volitional Control’ Requirement in Civil Commitments, 2 Law, Probability & Risk 309 (2003).
Link, SSRN
Expert Evidence in Flatland: The Geometry of a World Without Scientific Culture, 34 Seton Hall L. Rev. 255 (2003).
Link
Is Science Different for Lawyers?, 297 Sci. 339 (2002).
Embracing the Darkness: Logerquist v. McVey and the Doctrine of Ignorance of Science is an Excuse, 33 Ariz. St. L.J. 87 (2001).
Link
The Tipping Point in the Law’s Use of Science: The Epidemic of Scientific Sophistication that Began with DNA Profiling and Toxic Torts, 67 Brook. L. Rev. 111 (2001).
Link
The Law’s Scientific Revolution: Reflections and Ruminations on the Law’s Use of Experts in Year Seven of the Revolution, 57 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 661 (2000).
Link
How Good Is Good Enough? Expert Evidence under Daubert and Kumho, 50 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 645 (2000) (with David Kaye and Michael Saks and Joseph Sanders).
Link
Looking for Policy in All the Wrong Places: A Comment on the Strategies of ‘the Race and Gender Crowd’ Toward Evidence Law, 28 Sw. U. L. Rev. 289 (1999).
Link
Truth, with a Small “t”, 49 Hastings L.J. 1185 (1998).
Link
The Battered Woman Syndrome in the Age of Science, 39 Ariz. L. Rev. 67 (1997) (with Amy J. Wright).
Link
Appellate Review of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert and Joiner, 48 Hastings L.J. 969 (1997).
Link
The Syndromic Lawyer Syndrome: A Psychological Theory of Evidentiary Munificence, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 817 (1996).
Link
Making the Law Safe for Science: A Proposed Rule for the Admission of Expert Testimony, 35 Washburn L.J. 401 (1996).
Link
And to the Republic for Which It Stands’: Guaranteeing a Republican Form of Government, 23 Hastings Const. L.Q. 1057 (1996) (with Catherine Rogers).
Link
The Evidentiary Status of Social Science Under Daubert: Is it ‘Scientific,’ ‘Technical,’ or ‘Other’ Knowledge?, 1 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 960 (1995).
Mapping the Labyrinth of Scientific Evidence, 46 Hastings L.J. 555 (1995).
Link
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 (1994) (with Elise Porter & Michael J. Saks).
Link
Measuring Constitutionality Transactionally, 45 Hastings L.J. 753 (1994).
Link
Madisonian Balancing: A Theory of Constitutional Adjudication, 88 Nw. U. L. Rev. 641 (1994).
Link
Constitutional Adventures in Wonderland: Exploring the Debate Between Rules and Standards Through the Looking Glass of the First Amendment, 44 Hastings L.J. 829 (1993).
Link
Struggling to Stop the Flood of Unreliable Expert Testimony, 76 Minn. L. Rev. 877 (1992).
Link
Reconciling Individual Rights and Government Interests: Madisonian Principles Versus Supreme Court Practice, 78 Va. L. Rev. 1521 (1992).
Link
Normative Constitutional Fact-finding’: Exploring the Empirical Component of Constitutional Interpretation, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 541 (1991).
Link
By What Authority?: Reflections on the Constitutionality and Wisdom of the Flag Protection Act of 1989, 17 Hastings Const. L.Q. 353 (1990).
Link
To Have and Have Not: Assessing the Value of Social Science to the Law as Science and Policy, 38 Emory L.J. 1005 (1989).
Link
Confronting the Tyranny of the Majority, 8 S.F. Barrister L.J. 3 (1989).
Bayes' Theorem in the Trial Process: Instructing Jurors on the Value of Statistical Evidence, 12 Law & Hum. Behav. 1 (1988) (with A.J. Baglioni Jr.).
Link
The Battered Woman Syndrome and Self-defense: A Legal and Empirical Dissent, 72 Va. L. Rev. 619 (1986).
Link
Chapters in Books
Evidence: A Brief Guide to Differential Etiology, in The Judges’ Book vol. 6; Art. 9 (UC Law 2022).
Fact-Finding in Constitutional Cases, in A Dialogue Between Law and History 153 (Baosheng Zhang et al., eds. 2020).
Admissibility of Neuroscientific Expert Testimony, in A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience 89 (Stephen J. Morse & Adina L. Roskies eds., Oxford Univ. Press 2013).
Standards of Legal Admissibility and Their Implications for Psychological Science, in Psychological Science in the Courtroom: Consensus and Controversy 3 (Jennifer L. Skeem, Kevin S. Douglas & Scott O. Lilienfeld eds., Guilford Press 2009) (with John Monahan).
The Limits of Science in the Courtroom, in Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom 303 (Eugene Borgida & Susan T. Fiske eds., Blackwell Pub. 2008).
Expert Psychological Testimony, in Encyclopedia of Psychology & Law 267 (Brian L. Cutler ed., Sage Pub. 2008).
Expert Psychological Testimony, Forms of, in Encylopedia of Psychology & Law 275 (Brian L. Cutler ed., Sage Pub. 2008).
Expert Testimony, Qualifications of, in Encyclopedia of Psychology & Law 280 (Brian L. Cutler ed., Sage Pub. 2008).
Fact–Finding in Constitutional Cases, in How Law Knows 156 (Austin Sarat et al eds., Stanford Univ. Press 2007).
A Flow Chart of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates ___ (West Pub. Co. 1992 – 2006).
Expert Evidence: The Rules and the Rationality the Law Applies (or Should Apply) to Psychological Expertise, in Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts 367 (David Carson & Ray Bull eds., J. Wiley 2003).
Should Forensic Science be ‘Scientific’?, in Police, Techniques Modernes D’enquete ou de Surveillance et Droit de la Preuve: Actes du Colloque ___ (Edition R.D.U.S. 1998).
Like Socrates, But Hold the Hemlock: Teaching Law, in Full Disclosure: Do You Really Want To Be A Lawyer? 95 (Susan J. Bell ed., Peterson’s Guides 1992).
Book Reviews
Science and Law 101: Bringing Clarity to Pardo and Patterson’s Confused Conception of the Conceptual Confusion in Law and Neuroscience, 7 Jurisprudence 171 ( 2016) (reviewing MICHAEL S PARDO AND DENNIS PATTERSON, MINDS, BRAINS, AND LAW: THE CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF LAW AND NEUROSCIENCE (2013)).
Science and Law 101: Bringing Clarity to Pardo and Patterson’s Confused Conception of the Conceptual Confusion in Law and Neuroscience, 7 Jurisprudence 171 (2016) (reviewing MICHAEL S PARDO AND DENNIS PATTERSON, MINDS,BRAINS, AND LAW: THE CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF LAW AND NEUROSCIENCE (2013)).
It Ain’t Brain Surgery, But It’s Close, 56 Jurimetrics J. 197 ( 2016) (reviewing OWEN D. JONES, JEFFREY D. SCHALL,& FRANCIS X. SHEN, LAW AND NEUROSCIENCE (2014)) .
Discerning Justice When Battered Women Kill, 39 Hastings L.J. 207 ( 1987) (reviewing CHARLES PATRICK EWING, BATTERED WOMEN WHO KILL: PSYCHOLOGICAL SELF–DEFENSE AS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION (1987)).
Newspaper & Magazine Articles
The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed, Sci. Am., May 25, 2022 (with Nicholas Scurich & Thomas D. Albright).
Setting the Odds on Justice: Statistics and Probabilities in the Trial Process (1984), (unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Virginia) (on file with Brown Library University of Virginia).
Miscellaneous
The Polygraph and Lie Detection, National Academies Press ( 2003) (Final Report of the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph; National Academies of Science/National Research Council).