Abel, & Marsh, (1984). Abel, Charles F. & Marsh, Frank H., Punishment and Restitution: A Restitutionary Approach to Crime and the Criminal, Greenwood Publishing. [(2: 81)]
Achinstein, (2001). Peter Achinstein, The Book of Evidence, Oxford University Press. [(2: 53)]
Aitken, & Taroni, (2004). Aitken, C. G. G. & Taroni, Franco, Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists (2d ed.), Wiley. [(1: 26) (2: 228, 236–7)]
Allen, (1986). Allen, Ronald J., A reconceptualization of civil trials, Boston University Law Review 66: 401–37. [(2: 192–3) (3: 10–11) (4: 107)]
Allen, (1991). Allen, Ronald J., The nature of juridical proof. Cardozo Law Review 13: 373–422. [(2: 192, 204, 226)]
Allen, (1994). Allen, Ronald J., Factual ambiguity and a theory of evidence. Northwestern University Law Review 88: 604–40. [(2: 202, 204)]
Allen, (1997). Allen, Ronald J., Rationality, algorithms, and juridical proof: a preliminary inquiry. International Journal of Evidence & Proof 1: 253–75. [(2: 32)]
Allen, (2000). Allen, Ronald J., Clarifying the burden of persuasion and Bayesian decision rules: a response to Professor Kaye. International Journal of Evidence & Proof 4: 246–59. [(2: 32)]
Allen, (2006). Allen, Ronald J., The narrative fallacy, the relative plausibility theory, and a theory of the trial. International Commentary on Evidence 3(1): 1–6. [(2: 219)]
Allen, & Jehl, (2003). Allen, Ronald J. & Jehl, Sarah A., Burden of persuasion in civil actions: algorithms v. Explanations. Michigan State Law Review 4: 893–944. [(2: 200–1)]
Allen, & Laudan, (2008). Allen, Ronald J. & Laudan, Larry, Deadly dilemmas. Texas Tech Law Review 41: 65–92. [(2: 72)]
Allen, & Leiter, (2001). Allen, Ronald J. & Leiter, Brian, Naturalized epistemology and the law of evidence. Virginia Law Review 87: 1491–1550. [(2: 192, 203)]
Allen, & Pardo, (2007). Allen, Ronald J. & Pardo, Michael S., The problematic value of mathematical models of evidence. Journal of Legal Studies 36: 107–40. [(2: 229)]
Allen, & , Stein (2013). Allen, Ronald J. & Stein, Alex, Evidence, probability and the burden of proof. Arizona Law Review 55: 557–602. [(2: 177)]
Alexander, & Sherwin, (2001). Alexander, Larry & Sherwin, Emily, The Rule of Rules: Morality, Rules, and the Dilemmas of Law, Duke University Press. [(2: 171)]
Amaya, (2009). Amaya, Amalia, Inference to the best legal explanation, in Legal Evidence and Proof (Kaptein, H., Prakken, H., & Verheij, B., eds.), Ashgate Publishing. [(2: 229)]
Anderson, et al. (2005). Anderson, Terence, Schum, David, & Twining, William, The Analysis of Evidence (2d ed.), Cambridge University Press. [(2: 247–8)]
Ayer, (1957). Ayer, A. J., The conception of probability as a logical relation, in Observation and Interpretation in The Philosophy of Physics (Körner, S. ed.), Dover. [(3: 98)]
Ball, (1961). Ball, V. C., The moment of truth: probability theory and standards of proof. Vanderbilt Law Review 14: 807–30. [(2: 49)]
Barnett, (1980). Barnett, Randy E., The justice of restitution. American Journal of Jurisprudence 25: 117–32. [(2: 81)]
Beardsley, (1986). Beardsley, James, Proof of fact in French civil procedure. American Journal of Comparative Law 34: 459–86. [(4: 6)]
Beebee, & , Papineau (1997). Beebee, Helen & Papineau, David, Probability as a guide to life. Journal of Philosophy 94(5): 217–43. [(2: 101) (3: 38)]
Bentham, (1827). Bentham, Jeremy, Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Hunt & Clark. [(3: 208)]
Bex, & Walton, (2010). Bex, Floris & Walton, Douglas, Burdens and standards of proof for inference to the best explanation, in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Winkels, R. G. F., ed.), IOS Press. [(2: 220) (3: 122)]
Blackburn, (1980). Blackburn, Simon, Review of “The probable and the provable.” Synthese 44: 149–59. [(3: 94)]
Black (1999). Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.), West Publishing Co. [(1: 19)]
Blackstone, (1769). Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Oxford University Press. [(2: 66)]
Bolding, (1960). Bolding, Olof, Aspects of the burden of proof. Scandinavian Studies in Law 4: 9–27. [(1: 9) (2: 50) (5: 74–5)]
Brilmayer, (1986). Brilmayer, Lea, Second-order evidence and Bayesian logic. Boston University Law Review. 66: 673–91. [(1: 31) (3: 142) (4: 79–80, 177) (5: 3, 46)]
Brinkmann, (2004). Brinkmann, Moritz, The synthesis of common and civil law standard of proof formulae in the ALI/Unidroit principles of transnational civil procedure. Uniform Law Review (n.s.), 9: 875–91 [(1: 31) (3: 42) (4: 79–80, 177) (5: 3, 46)]
Brook, (1985). Brook, James, The use of statistical evidence of identification in civil litigation: well-worn hypotheticals, real cases, and controversy. St. Louis University Law Journal 29: 293–352. [(3: 13)]
Byrd, (1989). Byrd, Sharon, Kant's theory of punishment: deterrence in its threat, retribution in its execution. Law & Philosophy 8: 151–200. [(2: 182)]
Callen, (1994). Callen, Craig R., Hearsay and informal reasoning. Vanderbilt Law Review 47: 43–113. [(4: 40)]
Callen, (2003). Callen, Craig R., Rationality and relevancy: conditional relevancy and constrained resources. Michigan State Law Review 2003: 1243–1303. [(4: 40)]
Carnap, (1950). Carnap, Rudolf, Logical Foundations of Probability, University of Chicago Press. [(3: 207)]
Cheng, (2009). Cheng, Edward K., A practical solution to the reference class problem. Columbia Law Review 109: 2081–105. [(2: 229)]
Cheng, (2012). Cheng, Edward K., Reconceptualizing the burden of proof. Yale Law Journal 122: 1254–79. [(2: 213, 260–2)]
Cheng, & Pardo, (2015). Edward K. Cheng & Michael S. Pardo, Accuracy, optimality, and the preponderance standard. Law, Probability and Risk 14: 193–212. [(2: 56, 179, 187)]
Cleary, & Strong, (1966). Cleary, Edward W. & Strong, John W., The best evidence rule: an evaluation in context. Iowa Law Review 51: 825–48. [(4: 19–20, 22)]
Clermont, (1987). Clermont, Kevin M., Procedure's magical number three: psychological bases for standards of decision. Cornell Law Review 72: 1115–56. [(2: 147)]
Clermont, (2009). Clermont, Kevin M., Standards of proof revisited. Vermont Law Review 33: 469–87. [(2: 242) (3: 196)]
Clermont, (2013). Clermont, Kevin M., Standards of Decision in Law, Carolina Academic Press. [(1: 15) (2: 42, 147–51, 154) (3: 187–90, 192–5) (5: 9)]
Clermont, & , Sherwin (2002). Clermont, Kevin M. & Sherwin, Emily, A comparative view of standards of proof. American Journal of Comparative Law 50: 243–75. [(1: 24) (2: 40) (3: 204) (4: 107) (5: 75)]
Cobb, & , Shenoy (2003). Barry R. Cobb & Prakash P. Shinoy, A comparison of methods for transforming belief function models to probability models, in Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (Nielsen, Thomas D. & Zhang, Nevin Lianwen, eds.), Springer. [(3:182)]
Cohen, J. (1977). Cohen, L. J., The Probable and the Provable, Oxford University Press. [(1: 32) (2: 109) (3: 4, 77, 82, 103–4) (4: 2)]
Cohen, J. (1981). Cohen, L. J., Subjective probability and the paradox of the gatecrasher. Arizona State Law Journal 1981: 627–34. [(3: 7–8)]
Cohen, J. (1985). Cohen, L. J., Twelve questions about Keynes’ concept of weight. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37: 263–78. [(3: 3, 41, 93, 126, 136) (4: 15)]
Cohen, J. (1986). Cohen, L. J., The role of evidential weight in criminal proof. Boston University Law Review 66: 635–49. [(2: 46) (3: 80–1, 106) (4: 2)]
Cohen, J. (1989). Cohen, L. J., An Introduction to the Philosophy of Induction and Probability, Oxford University Press. [(2: 109) (3: 3, 27, 41, 143, 166)]
Cohen, J. (1992). Cohen, L. J., An Essay on Belief and Acceptance, Oxford University Press. [(2: 37)]
Cohen, N. (1985). Cohen, Neil B., Confidence in probability: burdens of persuasion in a world of imperfect knowledge. New York University Law Review 60: 385–422. [(2: 33) (3: 165) (4: 2) (5: 7–8, 10–12, 16, 19–21, 25–6, 28)]
Cohen, N. (1987). Cohen, Neil B., Conceptualizing proof and calculating probabilities: a response to Professor Kaye. Cornell Law Review 73: 78–95. [(1: 38) (5: 12, 13–15, 18, 22, 51)]
Cohen, S. (2005). Cohen, Stewart, Contextualism defended, in Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (Steup, Matthias & Sosa, Ernest, eds.), Blackwell. [(5: 89)]
Cohen, & Bersten, (1990). Cohen, Stephen & Bersten, Michael, Probability out of court: notes on “guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 66: 229–40. [(4: 151)]
Combs, (2010). Combs, Nancy Armoury, Fact-Finding without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions, Cambridge University Press. [(6: 1–5, 22–5)]
Coons, (1964). Coons, John E., Approaches to court-imposed compromise: the uses of doubt and reason. Northwestern University Law Review 58: 750–804. [(2: 5)]
Corman, (1991). Corman, Calvin W., Limitations of Actions (Vol. I), Little, Brown. [(4: 94)]
Cox, (1961). Cox, Richard T., The Algebra of Probable Inference, Johns Hopkins University Press. [(2: 97, 110)]
Damaška, (1986). Damaška, Mirjan, The Faces of Justice and State Authority, Yale University Press. [(4: 92)]
Damaška, (1997). Damaška, Mirjan, Evidence Law Adrift, Yale University Press. [(2: 141) (4: 23, 97)]
Davidson, & Pargetter, (1986). Davidson, Barbara & Pargetter, Robert, Weight. Philosophical Studies 49: 219–30. [(1: 31, 33) (3: 3, 12, 76) (5: 42)]
Davidson, (1987). Davidson, Barbara & Pargetter, Robert, Guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65: 182–7.[(3: 62–3, 66, 72–4, 142, 205) (4: 2) (5: 44–5)]
De Finetti, (1972). Finetti, Bruno De, Probability, Induction and Statistics, Wiley. [(2: 156)]
DeKay, (1996). DeKay, Michael L., The difference between Blackstone-like error rates and probabilistic standards of proof. Law and Social Inquiry 21: 95–132. [(2: 29, 34, 36, 67)]
Dershowitz, (1996). Dershowitz, Alan M., Life is not a dramatic narrative, in Law's Stories (Brooks, Peter & Gewirtz, Paul, eds.), Yale University Press. [(2: 215)]
Devitt, & Blackmar, (1977). Devitt, Edward J. & Blackmar, Charles B., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (3d ed.), West Publishing Co. [(2: 196)]
Devitt, et al. (1987). Devitt, Edward J., Blackmar, Charles B., & Wolff, Michael A., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions: Civil (4th ed.), West Publishing Co. [(2: 196)]
Dunham, & , Birmingham (1989). Dunham, Nancy J. & Birmingham, Robert L., On legal proof. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67: 479–86. [(4: 91)]
Durlauf, & , Nagin (2011). Durlauf, Steven N. & Nagin, Daniel S., Imprisonment and crime. Criminology & Public Policy 10: 13–54. [(2: 80)]
Dworkin, (1986). Dworkin, Ronald, Law's Empire, Harvard University Press. [(1: 37)]
Enderton, (1977). Enderton, Herbert E., Elements of Set Theory, Academic Press. [(2: 126–8) (3: 127)]
Enoch, et al. (2012). David Enoch, Levi Spectre, & Talia Fisher, Statistical Evidence, sensitivity, and the legal value of knowledge. Philosophy & Public Affairs 40(3): 197–224. [(5: 91)]
Fallis, (2002). Fallis, Don, Goldman on probabilistic inference. Philosophical Studies 109: 223–40. [(2: 246)]
Felix, & , Whitten (2011). Felix, Robert L. & Whitten, Ralph U., American Conflicts Law (6th ed.), Carolina Academic Press. [(2: 42) (4: 95) (5: 52)]
Fine, (1973). Fine, Terrence L., Theories of Probability, Academic Press. [(2: 93)]
Finkelstein, & , Fairley (1970). Finkelstein, Michael O. & Fairley, William B., A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. Harvard Law Review 83: 489–517. [(2: 230)]
Fisher, (2008). Fisher, George, Evidence (2d ed.), Foundation Press. [(4: 54)]
Forer, (1994). Forer, Lois G., A Rage to Punish: The Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Sentencing, Correctional Education Association. [(2: 80)]
Franklin, (2001). Franklin, James, Resurrecting logical probability. Erkenntnis 55: 277–305. [(2: 103, 164)]
Franklin, (2006). Franklin, James, Case comment – United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): quantification of the “proof beyond reasonable doubt” standard. Law, Probability & Risk 5: 159–65. [(3: 165) (4: 2, 68, 84) (5: 53)]
Friedman, (1992). Friedman, Richard D., Toward a partial economic, game-theoretic analysis of hearsay. Minnesota Law Review 76: 723–96. [(2: 206) (4: 55)]
Friedman, (1996). Friedman, Richard D., Assessing evidence. Michigan Law Review 94: 1810–38. [(3: 12, 142) (4: 177)]
Friedman, (1997a). Friedman, Richard D., Answering the Bayesioskeptical challenge. International Journal of Evidence & Proof 1: 276–91. [(2: 28, 202, 238) (3: 148–50)]
Friedman, (1997b). Friedman, Richard D., Dealing with evidentiary deficiency. Cardozo Law Review 18: 1961–86. [(3: 147, 152)]
Friedman, (2000). Friedman, Richard D., A presumption of innocence, not of even odds. Stanford Law Review 52: 873–87. [(2: 272–3)]
Friedman, (2001). Friedman, Richard D., “E” is for eclectic: multiple perspectives on evidence. Virginia. Law Review 87: 2029–54. [(2: 219)]
Friedman, (2003). Friedman, Richard D., Minimizing the jury over-valuation concern. Michigan State Law Review 4: 967–86. [(4: 52)]
Fuller, (1968). Fuller, Lon L., The Morality of Law (rev. ed.), Yale University Press. [(2: 52)]
Fuller, (1971). Fuller, Lon L., The adversary system, in Talks on American Law (Berman, Harold, ed.), Vintage Books. [(4: 10)]
Gärdenfors, (1993). Gärdenfors, Peter, On the logic of relevance, in Philosophy of Probability (Dubucs, Jacques-Paul, ed.), Kluwer Academic. [(4: 15)]
Gärdenfors, & , Sahlin (1982a). Gärdenfors, Peter & Sahlin, Nils-Eric, Unreliable probabilities, risk taking, and decision making. Synthese 53: 361–86. [(2: 158)]
Fuller, (1982b). Gärdenfors, Peter & Sahlin, Nils-Eric, Reply to Levi. Synthese 53: 433–8. [(2: 159)]
Garnett, (2012). Garnett, Richard, Substance and Procedure in Private International Law, Oxford University Press. [(2: 42)]
Garrett, (2011). Garrett, Brandon L., Convicting the Innocent, Harvard University Press. [(2: 42) (4: 99)]
Gemes, (2007). Gemes, Ken, Irrelevance: strengthening the Bayesian requirements. Synthese 156: 161–6. [(4: 15)]
Gershel, (2010). Gershel, Alan M., A review of the law in jurisdictions requiring electronic recording of custodial interrogations. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 16: art 9. [(4: 96)]
Gibbons, & Katzenbach, (2006). Gibbons, John J. & Katzenbach, Nicholas de B. (Commission Co-Chairs), Confronting Confinement: A Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, Vera Institute of Justice. [(2: 79)]
Gigerenzer, (2002). Gigerenzer, Gerd, Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live with Uncertainty, Penguin Books. [(2: 125)]
Gigerenzer, (2008). Gigerenzer, Gerd, Rationality for Mortals, Oxford University Press. [(3: 101)]
Gigerenzer, et al. (1999). Gigerenzer, Gerd, Todd, Peter M., and the ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Oxford University Press. [(2: 125) (3: 210)]
Gilbert, (1754). Gilbert, Geoffrey, The Law of Evidence (1st ed.), reprinted by Garland Publishing Co. (1979). [(4: 1)]
Gillies, (2000). Gillies, Donald, Philosophical Theories of Probability, Routledge. [(2: 94, 95–8, 103, 105, 108–9, 125, 164, 229) (3: 27, 122)]
Goldman, (2002). Goldman, Alvin, Quasi-objective Bayesianism and legal evidence. Jurimetrics Journal 42: 237–60. [(2: 243–6)]
Good, (1966). Good, I. J., On the principle of total evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17: 319–21. [(3: 38)]
Good, (1968). Good, I. J., Corroboration, evolving probability, simplicity, and a sharpened razor. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19: 123–43. [(3: 134)]
Goodwin, (2000). Goodwin, Jean, Wigmore's chart method. Informal Logic 20(3): 223–43. [(2: 248)]
Gorelick, et al. (1989). Gorelick, Jamie S., Marzen, Stephen, & Solum, Lawrence, Destruction of Evidence, Wiley Law Publications. [(4: 109)]
Griffin, (2013). Griffin, Lisa Kern, Narrative, truth, and trial. Georgetown Law Journal 101: 281–335. [(2: 253, 256)]
Haack, (1993). Haack, Susan, Evidence and Inquiry, Blackwell. [(2: 221) (3: 153, 156–7, 161)]
Haack, (2001). Haack, Susan, An epistemologist in the bramble-bush: at the supreme court with Mr. Joiner. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law 26: 217–48. [(4: 127)]
Haack, (2003). Haack, Susan, Defending Science – Within Reason, Prometheus Books. [(3: 167)]
Haack, (2008). Haack, Susan, Proving causation: the holism of warrant and the atomism of Daubert. Journal of Health and Biomedical Law 4: 253–89. [(3: 153, 155, 160, 162)]
Haack, (2012). Haack, Susan, The embedded epistemologist: dispatches from the legal front. Ratio Juris 25: 206–35. [(3: 158) (5:73)]
Haack, (2014). Haack, Susan, Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law, Cambridge University Press. [(1: 17) (2: 126) (3: 159, 166) (4: 121, 133)]
Hacking, (2001). Hacking, Ian, An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic, Cambridge University Press. [(2: 103) (5: 4)]
Hale, (1847). Hale, Matthew, History of the Pleas of the Crown (1st American ed.) [1736], R. H. Small. [(2: 68)]
Hamer, (2004). Hamer, David, Probabilistic standards of proof, their complements and the errors that are expected to flow from them. University of New England Law Journal 1: 71–107. [(2: 73, 104)]
Hamer, (2012a). Hamer, David, Delayed complaint, lost evidence and fair trial: epistemic and non-epistemic concerns, in Criminal Evidence and Human Rights (Roberts, P. and Hunter, J., eds.), Oxford University Press. [(4: 91)]
Hamer, (2012b). Hamer, David, Probability, anti-resilience, and the weight of expectation. Law, Probability & Risk 11: 135–58. [(4: 2) (5: 32–3, 38–9)]
Hamilton, & , Urahn (2010). Hamilton, Doug & Urahn, Susan K. (Directors), Collateral Costs: Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility, Pew Charitable Trusts. [(2: 77)]
Harman, (1980). Harman, Gilbert, Reasoning and evidence one does not possess. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5: 163–82. [(2: 240) (3: 90)]
Harman, (1986). Harman, Gilbert, Change in View, MIT Press. [(1: 27)]
Hart, & McNaughton, (1958). Hart, Henry M. & McNaughton, John T., Evidence and inference in law. Daedalus 87: 40–64. [(2: 4) (3: 76)]
Hart, (1961). Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press. [(2: 170) (4: 28)]
Hastie, (1993). Hastie, Reid, Algebraic models of juror decision processes, in Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making (Hastie, R., ed.), Cambridge University Press. [(2: 90, 129, 274)]
Hay, (1997). Hay, Bruce L., Allocating the burden of proof. Indiana Law Journal 72: 651–79. [(1: 13)]
Hay, & Spier, (1997). Hay, Bruce L. & Spier, Kathryn E., Burdens of proof in civil litigation: an economic perspective. Journal of Legal Studies 26: 413–31. [(4: 180)]
Henderson, (1971). Henderson, G. P., “Ought” implies “can.” Philosophy 2: 101–12. [(3: 65)]
Herman-Stahl, et al. (2008). Mindy Herman-Stahl, Marni L. Kan, & Tasseli McKay, Incarceration and the Family: A Review of Research and Promising Approaches for Serving Fathers and Families, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. [(2: 78)]
Herzog, (1967) Herzog, Peter, Civil Procedure in France, Martinus Nijhoff. [(4: 9)]
Ho, (2008). Ho, H. L., A Philosophy of Evidence Law, Oxford University Press. [(1: 5, 34) (2: 2, 12–15, 17–18, 140) (3: 12, 78, 165, 206) (4: 2, 77, 87, 142–3, 145–6, 150) (5: 63–72, 76–83, 85–9, 92)]
Holmes, (1897). Holmes, Oliver Wendell, The path of the law. Harvard Law Review 10: 457–78. [(2: 169) (4: 28)]
Horwich, (1982). Horwich, Paul, Probability and Evidence, Cambridge University Press. [(2: 16, 107, 110) (3: 163) (5: 3)
Howard-Snyder, (2006). Howard-Snyder, Frances, “Cannot” implies “not ought.” Philosophical Studies 130: 233–46. [(3: 65)]
Howson, & , Urbach (1993). Howson, Colin & Urbach, Peter, Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach (2nd ed.), Open Court. [(2: 16)]
Imwinkelried, & , Garland (2004). Imwinkelried, Edward J. & Garland, Norman M., Exculpatory Evidence: the Accused's Constitutional Right to Introduce Favorable Evidence, LexisNexis. [(4: 104)]
James, & Hazard, (1985). James, Fleming, Jr. & Hazard, Geoffrey C., Jr., Civil Procedure (3d ed.), Little, Brown. [(4: 83)]
James, (1940). James, George F., The role of the hearsay rule in a rational scheme of evidence. Illinois Law Review 34: 788–92. [(4: 55)]
Jaynes, (2003). Jaynes, E. T., Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, Cambridge University Press. [(2: 110)]
Josephson, (2001). Josephson, John R., On the proof dynamics of inference to the best explanation. Cardozo Law Review 22: 1621–43. [(3: 113–15, 117–18)]
Josephson, & Josephson, (1994). Josephson, John R. & Josephson, Susan G., Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology, Cambridge University Press. [(3: 116, 119)]
Juslin, et al. (2011). Juslin, Peter, Nilsson, Håkan, Winman, Anders, & Lindskog, Marcus, Reducing cognitive biases in probabilistic reasoning by the use of logarithm formats. Cognition 120: 248–67. [(2: 237)]
Kadane, & , Schum (1996). Kadane, Joseph B. & Schum, David A., A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Case, Wiley. [(2: 152)]
Kadish, & , Kadish (1973). Kadish, Mortimer R. & Kadish, Sanford H., Discretion to Disobey, Stanford University Press. [(4: 175)]
Kagehiro, & , Stanton (1985). Kagehiro, Dorothy K. & Stanton, W. Clark, Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior 9: 159–78. [(2: 85)]
Kahneman, (2011). Kahneman, Daniel, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. [(2: 252)]
Kaplan, J. (1968). Kaplan, John, Decision theory and the factfinding process. Stanford Law Review 20: 1065–92. [(2: 26, 49, 86)]
Kaplan, M. (1996). Kaplan, Mark, Decision Theory as Philosophy, Cambridge University Press. [(2: 31)]
Kaplow, (2011). Kaplow, Louis, On the optimal burden of proof. Journal of Political Economy 119: 1104–40. [(2: 166)]
Kaplow, (2012). Kaplow, Louis, Burden of proof. Yale Law Journal 121: 738–859. [(2: 113, 166–8, 172, 176, 178, 180, 185, 187–91) (3: 201)]
Kaplow, (2014). Kaplow, Louis, Likelihood ratio tests and legal decision rules. American Law and Economics Review 16(1): 1–39. [(2: 166, 183)]
Kaplow, & Shavell, (2002). Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, Fairness versus Welfare, Harvard University Press. [(1: 38) (2: 48)]
Kaptein, (2009). Kaptein, Hendrik, Rigid anarchic principles of evidence and proof: anomist panaceas against legal pathologies of proceduralism, in Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic (Kaptein, H., Prakken, H., & Verheij, B., eds.), Ashgate Publishing. [(1: 3)]
Karp, (1994). Karp, David J., Evidence of propensity and probability in sex offense cases and other cases. Chicago–Kent Law Review 70: 15–35. [(3: 97)]
Kaye, (1979a). Kaye, David, The paradox of the gatecrasher and other stories. Arizona State Law Journal 1979: 101–9. [(3: 9) (4: 76)]
Kaye, (1979b). Kaye, David, The laws of probability and the law of the land. University of Chicago Law Review 47: 34–56. [(2: 103)]
Kaye, (1981). Kaye, David H., Paradoxes, gedanken experiments and the burden of proof: a response to Dr. Cohen's reply. Arizona State Law Journal 1981: 635–45. [(3: 9)]
Kaye, (1982). Kaye, David H., The limits of the preponderance of the evidence standard: justifiably naked statistical evidence and multiple causation, 1982. American Bar Foundation Research Journal [now Law and Social Inquiry] 1982: 487–516. [(2: 212)]
Kaye, (1986). Kaye, David H., Do we need a calculus of weight, to understand proof beyond reasonable doubt? Boston University Law Review 66: 657–72. [(4: 2, 160)]
Kaye, (1987). Kaye, David H., Apples and oranges: confidence coefficients and the burden of persuasion. Cornell Law Review 73: 54–77. [(5: 17)]
Kaye, (1999). Kaye, David H., Clarifying the burden of persuasion: what Bayesian decision rules do and do not do. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 3: 1–28. [(2: 32–3) (3: 199)]
Kaye, (2000). Kaye, David H., Bayes, burdens and base rates. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 4: 260–7. [(2: 32)]
Kaye, et al. (2007). Kaye, David H., Hans, Valerie P., Dann, B. Michael, Farley, Erin, & Albertson, Stephanie, Statistics in the jury box: how jurors respond to mitochondrial DNA match probabilities. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4: 797–834. [(2: 90)]
Kazazi, (1996). Kazazi, Mojtaba, Burden of Proof and Related Issues: A Study of Evidence before International Tribunals, Kluwer Law International. [(6: 18–22)]
Keynes, (1921). Keynes, John M., A Treatise on Probability, Macmillan. [(1: 25) (3: 2, 26, 30, 33–5, 42, 125, 146) (4: 14)]
Kitai, (2003). Kitai, Rinat, Protecting the guilty. Buffalo Criminal Law Review 6: 1163–87. [(2: 70)]
Kleiger, (1989). Kleiger, Estelle Fox, The Trial of Levi Weeks, Academy Chicago Publishers. [(2: 68)]
Klonoff, & , Colby (1990). Klonoff, Robert H. & Colby, Paul L., Sponsorship Strategy: Evidentiary Tactics for Winning Jury Trials, The Michie Company.[(2: 205, 267)(4: 23)]
Koehler, (2002). Koehler, Jonathan J., When do courts think base rate statistics are relevant? Jurimetrics Journal 42: 373–402. [(3: 13)]
Koehler, & , Shaviro (1990). Koehler, Jonathan J. & Shaviro, Daniel N., Veridical verdicts: increasing verdict accuracy through the use of overtly probabilistic evidence and methods. Cornell Law Review 75: 247–79. [(2: 239, 268) (3: 5, 70) (5: 40)]
Kovera, et al. (1992). Kovera, Margaret B., Park, Roger C., & Penrod, Steven D., Jurors’ perceptions of eyewitness and hearsay evidence. Minnesota Law Review 76: 703–22. [(4: 56)]
Kyburg, (1983). Kyburg, Henry E., Jr., Epistemology and Inference, University of Minnesota Press. [(2: 160)]
LaFave, (2003). LaFave, Wayne R., Substantive Criminal Law (2d ed.), West Publishing Co. [(1: 12) (2: 41)]
Lamperti, (1996). Lamperti, John W., Probability: A Survey of the Mathematical Theory (2d ed.), Wiley. [(2: 94)]
Langbein, (1985). Langbein, John, The German advantage in civil litigation. University of Chicago Law Review 52: 823–66. [(4: 6)]
Laplace, (1814). Laplace, Pierre-Simon, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (English translation of the 6th French edition, 1951), Dover. [(2: 102) (3: 27)]
Laudan, (2006). Laudan, Larry, Truth, Error, and Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press. [(1: 5) (2: 46) (3: 191) (4: 102, 139)]
Laudan, (2007). Laudan, Larry, Strange bedfellows: inference to the best explanation and the criminal standards of proof. International Journal of Evidence & Proof 11: 292–306. [(2: 210) (3: 191)
Laudan, & , Saunders (2009). Laudan, Larry & Saunders, Harry D., Re-thinking the criminal standard of proof: seeking consensus about the utilities of trial outcomes. International Commentary on Evidence 7(2): 1–34. [(2: 72)]
Lee, (1997). Lee, Thomas R., Pleading and proof: the economics of legal burdens. Brigham Young University Law Review 1997: 1–34. [(2: 62)]
Lempert, (1986). Lempert, Richard O., The new evidence scholarship: analyzing the process of proof. Boston University Law Review 66: 439–77. [(2: 206) (3: 11) (4: 77–8)]
Lempert, (1993a). Lempert, Richard O., The suspect population and DNA identification. Jurimetrics 34: 1–7. [(2: 229)]
Lempert, (1993b). Lempert, Richard O., Civil juries and complex cases: taking stock after twelve years, in Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System (Litan, Robert E., ed.), Brookings Institution. [(4: 126)]
Lempert, (1997). Lempert, Richard O., Of flutes, oboes, and the as if world of evidence law. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1: 316–20. [(2: 238)]
Lempert, (2001). Lempert, Richard O., The economic analysis of evidence law: common sense on stilts. Virginia Law Review 87: 1619–712. [(1: 13) (2: 83) (3: 131)]
Leubsdorf, (1991). Leubsdorf, John, Stories and numbers. Cardozo Law Review 13: 455–63. [(2: 206)]
Leubsdorf, (2010). Leubsdorf, John, Evidence law as a system of incentives. Iowa Law Review 95: 1621–62. [(4: 108)]
Leubsdorf, (2013). Leubsdorf, John, Preponderance of the evidence: some history, Research paper no. 149, Rutgers School of Law–Newark, ssrn.com/abstract = 2466127. [(1: 23)]
Levi, (1980). Levi, Isaac, The Enterprise of Knowledge, MIT Press. [(2: 155) (5: 61)]
Levi, (1982). Levi, Isaac, Ignorance, probability and rational choice. Synthese 53: 387–417. [(2: 157)]
Levi, (1984). Levi, Isaac, Decisions and Revisions: Philosophical Essays on Knowledge and Value, Cambridge University Press. [(2: 99)]
Levmore, (1990). Levmore, Saul, Probabilistic recoveries, restitution, and recurring wrongs. Journal of Legal Studies 19: 691–726. [(2: 15) (3: 6)]
Lillquist, (2002). Lillquist, Erik, Recasting reasonable doubt: decision theory and the virtues of variability. University of California at Davis Law Review 36: 85–196. [(2: 28, 87)]
Lilly, et al. (2012). Lilly, Graham C., Capra, Daniel J., & Saltzburg, Stephen A., Principles of Evidence (6th ed.), West Publishing Co. [(4: 44, 82)]
Lipton, (2001). Lipton, Peter, What good is explanation? in Explanation: Theoretical Approaches and Explanations (Hon, G. and Rakover, S. S., eds.), Kluwer Academic. [(2: 218, 221, 231, 238)]
Livermore, (1984). Livermore, Joseph M., Absent evidence. Arizona Law Review 26: 27–40. [(4: 163)]
Livingston, (1969). Livingston, J. Sterling, Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review 47: 81–9. [(2: 174)]
Locke, (1690). Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (originally published 1690–1700) (Nidditch, P., ed., 1975), Oxford University Press. [(2: 1) (3: 1) (5: 1)]
Logue, (1995). Logue, James, Projective Probability, Oxford University Press. [(1: 28) (2: 110) (3: 103) (5: 49–50)]
Marder, (2005). Marder, Nancy S., The Jury Process, Foundation Press. [(2: 9, 132–3) (4: 137)]
Martin, & , Schum (1987). Martin, Anne W. & Schum, David A., Quantifying burdens of proof: a likelihood ratio approach. Jurimetrics Journal 27: 383–402. [(2: 275)]
McBaine, (1944). McBaine, J. P., Burden of proof: degrees of belief. California Law Review, 32: 242–68. [(2: 45, 146)]
McCormick, (2013). McCormick on Evidence (7th ed., Broun, Kenneth S. gen. ed.), West Publishing Co. [(1: 2, 4, 6–7, 9, 24) (2: 47, 134, 143, 258, 270) (4: 62, 98, 172)]
McNaughton, (1955). McNaughton, James, Burdens of production of evidence: a function of the burden of persuasion. Harvard Law Review 68: 1382–91. [(4: 59)]
Meine, et al. (1992). Meine, Peter, Park, Roger, & Borgida, Eugene, Juror decision making and the evaluation of hearsay evidence. Minnesota Law Review 76: 683–701. [(4: 56)]
Mellor, (2005). Mellor, D. H., Probability: A Philosophical Introduction, Routledge. [(2: 95, 103, 106–7, 111–12]
Milich, (1992). Milich, Paul S., Hearsay antimonies: the case for abolishing the rule and starting over. Oregon Law Review 71: 723–79. [(4: 55)]
Miller, (1956). Miller, George A., The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63: 81–97. [(2: 27)]
Miller, et al. (1975). Miller, Richard L., Brickman, Philip, & Bolen, Diana, Attribution versus persuasion as a means for modifying behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31: 430–41. [(2: 174)]
Mitchell, & Tetlock, (2006). Mitchell, Gregory & Tetlock, Philip E., An empirical inquiry into the relation of corrective justice to distributive justice. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 3: 421–66. [(2: 51)]
Morgan, (1933). Morgan, Edmund M., Instructing the jury upon presumptions and burden of proof. Harvard Law Review 47: 59–83. [(2: 45)]
Morgan, (1937). Morgan, Edmund, The jury and the exclusionary rules of evidence. University of Chicago Law Review 4: 247–58. [(4: 52)]
Mueller, (1992). Mueller, Christopher B., Post-modern hearsay reform: the importance of complexity. Minnesota Law Review 76: 367–423. [(4: 54)]
Mueller, & , Kirkpatrick (2012). Mueller, Christopher B. & Kirkpatrick, Laird C., Evidence (5th ed.), Wolters Kluwer Law and Business. [(2: 264–5)]
Murray, & , Stürner (2004). Murray, Peter L & Stürner, Rolf, German Civil Procedure, Carolina Academic Press. [(4: 9)]
Nagin, (2013). Nagin, Daniel S., Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 42: 199–263. [(2: 179)]
Nance, (1986). Nance, Dale A., A comment on the supposed paradoxes of a mathematical interpretation of the logic of trials. Boston University Law Review 66: 947–52. [(2: 197)]
Nance, (1988). Nance, Dale A., The best evidence principle. Iowa Law Review 73: 227–97. [(4: 31, 49, 55)]
Nance, (1990). Nance, Dale A., Conditional relevance reinterpreted. Boston University Law Review 70: 447–507. [(4: 43)]
Nance, (1991). Nance, Dale A., Missing evidence. Cardozo Law Review 13: 831–82. [(4: 33)]
Nance, (1992). Nance, Dale A., Understanding responses to hearsay: an extension of the comparative analysis. Minnesota Law Review 76: 459–72. [(4: 55)]
Nance, (1994). Nance, Dale A., Civility and the burden of proof. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 17: 647–90. [(1: 9) (2: 55–6)]
Nance, (1995a). Nance, Dale A., A theory of verbal completeness. Iowa Law Review 80: 825–99. [(4: 16)]
Nance, (1995b). Nance, Dale A., Conditional probative value and the reconstruction of the federal rules of evidence. Michigan Law Review 94: 419–56. [(4: 43)]
Nance, (1996). Nance, Dale A., Verbal completeness and exclusionary rules under the federal rules of evidence. Texas Law Review 75: 51–129. [(4: 43)]
Nance, (1997). Nance, Dale A., Guidance rules and enforcement rules: a better view of the cathedral. Virginia Law Review 83: 837–937. [(2: 173, 181) (4: 30)]
Nance, (1998). Nance, Dale A., Evidential completeness and the burden of proof. Hastings Law Journal 49: 621–62. [(3: 142) (4: 33, 69, 71, 84, 162)]
Nance, (1999). Nance, Dale A., Law and Justice: Cases and Readings on the American Legal System (2d ed.), Carolina Academic Press. [(2: 28)]
Nance, (2001). Nance, Dale A., Naturalized epistemology and the critique of evidence theory. Virginia Law Review 87: 1551–1618. [(2: 202, 206, 208, 210, 223, 227, 236, 241)]
Nance, (2003). Nance, Dale A., Reliability and the admissibility of experts. Seton Hall Law Review 34: 191–253. [(3: 162) (4: 119, 127, 134)]
Nance, (2004). Nance, Dale A., Rethinking confrontation after Crawford. International Commentary on Evidence 2(1): 1–17. [(4: 75)]
Nance, (2006a). Nance, Dale A., The Wisdom of Dallas County, in Evidence Stories (Lempert, Richard, ed.), West Publishing Co. [(4: 57)]
Nance, (2006b). Nance, Dale A., Rules, standards, and the internal point of view. Fordham Law Review 75: 1287–1316. [(2: 175) (4: 30)]
Nance, (2007a). Nance, Dale A., The reference class problem and mathematical models of inference. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 11: 259–73. [(2: 229)]
Nance, (2007b). Nance, Dale A., Allocating the risk of error: its role in the theory of evidence law. Legal Theory 13: 129–64. [(3: 89) (4: 2, 97)]
Nance, (2007c). Nance, Dale A., The inferential arrow: a comment on interdisciplinary conversation. Law, Probability and Risk 6: 87–95. [(2: 249)]
Nance, (2007d). Nance, Dale A., Juries and experts: some recent data from medical malpractice litigation. International Society of Barristers 42: 421–3. [(4: 126)]
Nance, (2008). Nance, Dale A., The weights of evidence. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 5(3): 267–81. [(1: 26)]
Nance, (2010). Nance, Dale A., Adverse inferences about adverse inferences: restructuring juridical roles for responding to evidence tampering by parties to litigation. Boston University Law Review 90: 1089–1146. [(3: 164) (4: 33, 110, 112, 155, 159, 161, 164, 173–4, 179, 181)]
Nance, & Morris, (2002). Nance, Dale A. & Morris, Scott B., An empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively large and quantifiable random match probability. Jurimetrics Journal 42: 403–45. [(2: 230) (4: 126)]
Nance, (2005). Nance, Dale A. & Morris, Scott B., Juror understanding of DNA evidence: an empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively small and quantifiable random match probability. Journal of Legal Studies 34: 395–444. [(2: 90, 230) (4: 126)]
Neff, (2001). Neff, James, The Wrong Man, Random House. [(4: 25)]
Nesson, (1985). Nesson, Charles, The evidence or the event? On judicial proof and the acceptability of verdicts. Harvard Law Review 98: 1357–92. [(2: 44)]
Nesson, (1991). Nesson, Charles, Incentives to spoliate evidence in civil litigation: the need for vigorous judicial action. Cardozo Law Review 13: 793–803. [(4: 21)]
Niedermeier, et al. (1999). Niedermeier, Keith E., Kerr, Norbert L., & Messé, Lawrence A., Jurors’ use of naked statistical evidence: exploring bases and implications of the Wells effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(4): 533–42. [(3: 21–2)]
Nozick, (1981). Nozick, Robert, Philosophical Explanations, Harvard University Press. [(5: 61)]
Oaksford, & Chater, (2007). Oaksford, Mike & Chater, Nick, Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning, Oxford University Press. [(2: 250)]
Okasha, (2000). Okasha, Samir, Van Fraassen's critique of inference to the best explanation. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 31: 691–710. [(2: 234)]
O'Donnell, (1992). O'Donnell, Rod, Keynes’ weight of argument and Popper's paradox of ideal evidence. Philosophy of Science 59: 44–52. [(4: 15)]
O'Malley, et al. (2006). O'Malley, Kevin F., Grenig, Jay E., & Lee, William C., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (6th ed.), West Publishing Co. [(1: 15, 23, 29) (2: 51, 55, 131, 142, 263, 265–7) (4: 158, 170)]
Orloff, & Stedinger, (1983). Orloff, Neil & Stedinger, Jery, A framework for evaluating the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 131: 1159–74. [(3: 6)]
Owens, (2000). Owens, David, Reason without Freedom – The Problem of Epistemic Normativity, Routledge. [(1: 27)]
Pardo, (2007). Pardo, Michael S., Book review: On misshapen stones and criminal law's epistemology (reviewing Larry Laudan, Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology). Texas Law Review 86: 347–83. [(4: 102)]
Pardo, (2009). Pardo, Michael S., Second-order proof rules. Florida Law Review 61: 1083–1113. [(2: 225, 233) (3: 197)]
Pardo, (2010). Pardo, Michael S., The Gettier problem and legal proof. Legal Theory 16: 37–57. [(5: 91)]
Pardo, (2013). Pardo, Michael S., The nature and purpose of evidence theory. Vanderbilt Law Review 66: 547–613. [(2: 136, 211, 225, 233) (3: 197)]
Pardo, & , Allen (2008). Pardo, Michael S. & Allen, Ronald J., Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy 27: 223–68. [(4: 11)]
Parisi, (2002). Parisi, Francesco, Rent-seeking through litigation: adversarial and inquisitorial systems compared. International Review of Law and Economics 22: 193–216. [(4: 11)]
Park, et al. (2011). Park, Roger C., Leonard, David P., Orenstein, Aviva A., & Goldberg, Steven H., Evidence Law: A Student's Guide to the Law of Evidence as Applied in American Trials (3d ed.), West Publishing Co. [(1: 10) (2: 42)]
Peirce, (1932). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 2, Hartshorne, C. & Weiss, P., eds.), Harvard University Press. [(3: 128)]
Peirce, (1955). Peirce, C. S., Abduction and induction, in Philosophical Writings of Peirce (Buchler, J., ed.) [orig. pub. 1901]), Dover. [(3: 112)]
Pennington, & Hastie, (1991). Pennington, Nancy & Hastie, Reid, A cognitive theory of juror decision making: the story model. Cardozo Law Review 13: 519–57. [(2: 222)]
Peirce, (1992). Pennington, Nancy & Hastie, Reid, Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62: 189–206. [(2: 251)]
Peirce, (1993). Pennington, Nancy & Hastie, Reid, The story model for juror decision making, in Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making (Hastie, Reid, ed.), Cambridge University Press. [(2: 222, 224)]
Picinali, (2013). Picinali, Federico, Two meanings of “reasonableness”: dispelling the “floating” reasonable doubt. Modern Law Review 76: 845–75. [(2: 19, 88)]
Plantinga, (1993). Plantinga, Alvin, Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford University Press. [(2: 99, 107)]
Polinsky, (1989). Polinsky, A. Mitchell, An Introduction to Law and Economics (2nd ed.), Little, Brown. [(3: 59)]
Popper, (1959). Popper, Karl R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books. [(4: 13)]
Posner, (1998). Posner, Richard A., Rational choice, behavioral economics and the law. Stanford Law Review 50: 1551–75. [(1: 13) (2: 38)]
Posner, (1999). Posner, Richard A., An economic approach to evidence law. Stanford Law Review 51: 1477–1546. [(2: 271) (3: 141) (4: 54, 85–6)]
Priest, & Klein, (1984). Priest, George L. & Klein, Benjamin, The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13: 1–55. [(2: 259)]
Rakos, & Landsman, (1992). Rakos, Richard F. & Landsman, Stephen, Researching the hearsay rule: emerging findings, general issues and future directions. Minnesota Law Review 76: 655–82. [(4: 56)]
Rao, et al. (2002). Rao, Rajesh P. N., Olshausen, Bruno A., & Lewicki, Michael S., Probabilistic Models of the Brain: Perception and Neural Function, Bradford Books. [(2: 254)]
Rawls, (1971). Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press. [(1: 3)]
Redmayne, (1999). Redmayne, Mike, Standards of proof in civil litigation. Modern Law Review 62: 167–95. [(1: 4) (2: 28, 87)]
Redmayne, (2003). Redmayne, Mike, Objective probability and the assessment of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 2: 275–94. [(2: 105)]
Redmayne, (2008a). Redmayne, Mike, Exploring the proof paradoxes. Legal Theory 14: 281–309. [(3: 5)]
Redmayne, (2008b). Redmayne, Mike, Book review: Reviewing Larry Laudan, Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology. New Criminal Law Review 11: 181–5. [(4: 102)]
Reichenbach, (1949). Reichenbach, Hans, The Theory of Probability (2d ed.), University of California Press. [(3: 49–51)]
Rescher, (1976). Rescher, Nicholas, Plausible Reasoning: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Plausibilistic Inference, Van Gorcum. [(3: 110)]
Rescher, (1989). Rescher, Nicholas, Cognitive Economy: The Economic Dimension of the Theory of Knowledge, University of Pittsburgh Press. [(3: 91–2, 209)]
Rescher, (2009). Rescher, Nicholas, Ignorance: On the Wider Implications of Deficient Knowledge, University of Pittsburgh Press. [(3: 68–9)]
Riddell, & Plant, (2009). Riddell, Anna & Plant, Brendan, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law. [(2: 39–40) (4: 8) (6: 6–16)]
Risinger, (1982). Risinger, D. Michael, “Substance” and “procedure” revisited, with some afterthoughts on the constitutional problems of “irrebuttable presumptions.” UCLA Law Review 30: 189–216. [(2: 42)]
Robertson, & Vignaux, (1995). Robertson, Bernard & Vignaux, G. A., Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom, Wiley. [(2: 228)]
Rosenne, (1985). Rosenne, Shabtai, The Law and Practice of the International Court (3d ed.), Martinus Nijhoff. [(6: 12)]
Rosenthal, & Jacobson, (1968). Rosenthal, Robert & Jacobson, Lenore, Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development, Holt, Reinhart & Winston. [(2: 174)]
Runde, (1990). Runde, Jochen, Keynesian uncertainty and the weight of arguments. Economics and Philosophy 6: 275–92. [(3: 3, 129, 132)]
Runde, (1994). Runde, Jochen, Keynes after Ramsey: In defense of A Treatise on Probability. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 25: 97–124. [(3: 2)]
Runde, (2000). Runde, Jochen, Shackle on probability, in Economics as an Art of Thought: Essays in Memory of G. L. S. Shackle (Earl, Peter E. & Frowen, Stephen F., eds.), Routledge. [(3: 99])
Sahlin, (1993). Sahlin, Nils-Eric, On higher order beliefs, in Philosophy of Probability (Dubucs, Jacques-Paul, ed.), Kluwer Academic. [(3: 53–7)]
Saks, (2000). Saks, Michael J., The aftermath of Daubert: an evolving jurisprudence of expert evidence. Jurimetrics Journal 40: 229–41. [(4: 136)]
Salmon, (1973). Salmon, Wesley, Logic (2d ed.), Prentice-Hall. [(3: 207)]
Saltzburg, (1978a). Saltzburg, Stephen A., The unnecessarily expanding role of the American trial judge. Virginia Law Review 64: 1–81. [(4: 176)]
Saltzburg, (1978b). Saltzburg, Stephen A., A special aspect of relevance: countering negative inferences associated with the absence of evidence. California Law Review 66: 1011–60. [(4: 157)]
Sanchirico, (1997). Sanchirico, Chris W., The burden of proof in civil litigation: a simple model of mechanism design. International Review of Law and Economics 17: 431–47. [(3: 60)]
Sanchirico, (2008). Sanchirico, Chris W., A primary-activity approach to proof burdens. Journal of Legal Studies, 37: 273–313. [(1: 13)]
Sanders, (1998). Sanders, Joseph, Bendectin on Trial: A Study of Mass Tort Litigation, University of Michigan Press. [(4: 132)]
Saunders, (2005). Saunders, Harry D., Quantifying reasonable doubt: a proposed solution to an equal protection problem. ExpressO; available at: http://works.bepress.com/harry_saunders/2 [(2: 87, 153)]
Scharf, & Day, (2012). Scharf, Michael P. & Day, Margaux, The International Court of Justice's treatment of circumstantial evidence and adverse inferences. Chicago Journal of International Law 13: 123–51. [(6: 16)]
Schauer, (1991). Schauer, Frederick, Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based DecisionMaking in Law and in Life, Oxford University Press. [(4: 81)]
Schauer, (2003). Schauer, Frederick, Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes, Harvard University Press. [(2: 269)]
Schauer, & Spellman, (2013). Schauer, Frederick & Spellman, Barbara A., Is expert evidence really different? Notre Dame Law Review 89: 1–26. [(4: 126)]
Scheck, et al. (2003). Scheck, Barry, Neufeld, Peter, & Dwyer, Jim, Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, Penguin (New American Library). [(5: 59)]
Schlesinger, (1991). Schlesinger, George N., The Sweep of Probability, University of Notre Dame Press. [(2: 103) (4: 15)]
Schmalbeck, (1986). Schmalbeck, Richard, The trouble with statistical evidence. Law and Contemporary Problems 49: 221–36. [(5: 3)]
Schoemaker, (1982). Schoemaker, Paul J. H., The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature 20: 529–63. [(2: 31)]
Schoeman, (1987). Schoeman, Ferdinand, Cohen on inductive probability and the law of evidence. Philosophy of Science 54: 76–91. [(3: 103, 203)]
Schuetz, & Lilley, (1999). Schuetz, Janice E. & Lilley, Lin S. (eds.), The O. J. Simpson Trials: Rhetoric, Media and the Law, Southern Illinois University Press. [(5: 57)]
Schum, (1994). Schum, David A., Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, Wiley. [(1: 36) (2: 25, 117, 124, 254, 257) (3: 75, 105, 134, 154, 159, 169)]
Seigel, (1992). Seigel, Michael, Rationalizing hearsay: a proposal for a best evidence hearsay rule. Boston University Law Review 72: 893–950. [(4: 57)]
Shackle, (1969). Shackle, G. L. S., Decision, Order and Time in Human Affairs (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press. [(5: 94)]
Shafer, (1976). Shafer, Glenn, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press. [(2: 130) (3: 36, 168, 171, 173, 180)]
Shafer, (1981). Shafer, Glen, Constructive probability. Synthese 48: 1–60. [(2: 165)]
Shafer, (1986). Shafer, Glen, The construction of probability arguments. Boston University Law Review 66: 799–816. [(3: 36)]
Simon, & Blaskovich, (2002). Simon, Rita J. & Blaskovich, Dagny A., A Comparative Analysis of Capital Punishment, Lexington Books. [(2: 75)]
Sinnott-Armstrong, (1984). Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, “Ought” conversationally implies “can.” Philosophical Review 93: 249–61. [(3: 65)]
Skyrms, (1990). Skyrms, Bryan, The Dynamics of Rational Deliberation, Harvard University Press. [(3: 39–40)]
Skyrms, (2000). Skyrms, Brian, Choice and Chance (4th ed.), Wadsworth. [(3: 207)]
Smets, (2005). Smets, Philippe, Decision making in the TBM: the necessity of the pignistic transformation. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 38: 133–47. [(3: 183)]
Smith, (2010). Smith, Martin, What else justification could be. Noȗs 44: 10–31. [(3: 123)]
Sommer, (1976). Sommer, Robert, The End of Imprisonment, Oxford University Press. [(2: 80)]
Sowle, (1994). Sowle, Stephen D., A regime of social death: criminal punishment in the age of prisons. New York University Review of Law & Social Change 21: 497–565 [(2: 80)]
Spottswood, (2013). Spottswood, Mark, The hidden structure of fact-finding. Case Western Reserve Law Review 64: 131–200. [(2: 254, 256)]
Starkie, (1832). Starkie, Thomas, A Practical Treatise on the Law of Evidence (4th ed., Nicklin, P. H. & Johnson, T., eds.), reprinted in 2012 by Nabu Press. [(2: 69)]
Stein, (1996). Stein, Alex, The refoundation of evidence law. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 9: 279–342. [(1: 15, 28, 31) (2: 11, 109, 114–15, 119) (3: 78)]
Stein, (2005). Stein, Alex, Foundations of Evidence Law, Oxford University Press. [(3: 12, 25, 31, 79, 89, 107, 142, 197) (4: 2, 29, 97) (5: 29–30, 36–7, 40, 48)]
Stein, (2011). Stein, Alex, The flawed probabilistic foundations of law and economics. Northwestern University Law Review 105: 199–260. [(2: 119–22, 125) (3: 43–4)]
Stier, (1985). Stier, Robert H., Jr., Revisiting the missing witness inference: quieting the loud voice from the empty chair. Maryland Law Review 44: 137–76. [(4: 168)]
Stoffelmayr, & Diamond, (2000). Stoffelmayr, Elisabeth & Diamond, Shari Seidman, The conflict between precision and flexibility in explaining “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Psychology Public Policy and Law 6: 769–87. [(2: 47)]
Stanovich, (2011). Stanovich, Keith E., Rationality and the Reflective Mind, Oxford Unversity Press. [(2: 255)]
Strat, (1990). Strat, Thomas M., Decision analysis using belief functions. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 4: 391–417 [(3: 181, 186)]
Summers, (1969). Summers, Robert S., Law, adjudicative processes, and civil justice, in Law, Reason, and Justice (Hughes, G., ed.), New York University Press. [(4: 107)
Summers, (1974). Summers, Robert S., Evaluating and improving legal process: a plea for “process values.” Cornell Law Review 60: 1–52. [(3: 212)]
Swinburne, (2001). Swinburne, Richard S., Epistemic Justification, Oxford University Press. [(2: 107, 110, 231) (3: 37, 65, 92, 102, 206)]
Tapper, (1995). Tapper, Colin, Cross and Tapper on Evidence (8th ed.), Butterworths. [(1: 8)]
Taruffo, (2003). Tarfuffo, Michelle, Rethinking the standards of proof. American Journal of Comparative Law 51: 659–77. (2: 35, 40) (4: 7)
Teply, & Whitten, (1994). Reply, Larry L. & Whitten, Ralph U., Civil Procedure, Foundation Press. [(1: 20)]
Thayer, (1898). Thayer, James Bradley, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law, Little, Brown (reprinted in 1969 by Augustus M. Kelley Publishers). [(4: 52)]
Tillers, & Gottfried, (2006). Tillers, Peter & Gottfried, Jonathan, United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 276 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): a collateral attack on the legal maxim that proof beyond reasonable doubt is unquantifiable? Law, Probability and Risk 5: 135–73. [(2: 91, 152, 242)]
Toulmin, (1958). Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press. [(3: 109)]
Tribe, (1971). Lawrence Tribe, trial by mathematics: precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review 84: 1329–93. [(2: 28–9) (4: 76)]
Troffaes, (2007). Troffaes, Matthias C. M., Decision making under uncertainty using imprecise probabilities. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 45(1): 17–29. [(2: 165)]
Twining, (1984). Twining, William, Evidence and legal theory. Modern Law Review, 47: 261–83. [(4: 107)]
Twining, (1985). Twining, William, Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore, Weidenfeld & Nicolson. [(2: 144)]
Twining, (1990). Twining, William, Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, Basil Blackwell. [(4: 107)]
Valencia-Ospina, (1999). Valencia-Ospina, E., Evidence before the International Court of Justice. International Law Forum du droit international 4: 202–7. [(6: 12)]
Vidmar, & Diamond, (2001). Vidmar, Neil & Diamond, Shari Seidman, Juries and expert evidence. Brooklyn Law Review 66: 1121–80. [(4: 126)]
Walker, (1996). Walker, Vern R., Preponderance, probability, and warranted factfinding. Brooklyn Law Review 62: 1075–1136. [(2: 276)]
Walker, (2001). Walker, Vern R., Theories of uncertainty: explaining the possible sources of error in inferences. Cardozo Law Review 22: 1523–70. [(4: 3)]
Walley, (1991). Walley, Peter, Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities, Chapman & Hall. [(2: 145)
Walton, (2002). Walton, Douglas, Legal Argumentation and Evidence, Pennsylvania State University Press. [(1: 16) (3: 111, 120–122, 124)]
Weinrib, (2011). Weinrib, Ernest J., Private law and public right. University of Toronto Law Journal 61: 191–211. [(2: 54)]
Weinstein, & Dewbury, (2006). Weinstein, Jack B. & Dewsbury, Ian, Comment on the meaning of “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Law, Probability and Risk 5: 167–73. [(2: 47, 85)]
Wells, (1992). Wells, Gary L., Naked statistical evidence of liability: is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62: 739–52. [(3: 14–18, 23)]
Whitebread, & Slobogin, (2008). Whitebread, Charles H. & Slobogin, Christopher, Criminal Procedure (5th ed.), Foundation Press. [(4: 20, 147)]
Whitman, (2008). Whitman, James Q., The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: The Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial, Yale University Press. [(2: 43) (4: 169)]
Wigmore, (1913). Wigmore, John H., The Principles of Judicial Proof, Little, Brown. [(2: 247)]
Wigmore, (1937). Wigmore, John H., The Science of Judicial Proof (3d ed.), Little, Brown. [(1: 1) (2: 247–8) (3: 108)]
Wigmore, (1970). 3 Wigmore, John H., Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Wigmore on Evidence) (Chadbourn rev. 1970), Little, Brown. [(4: 99)]
Wigmore, (1972). 4 Wigmore, John H., Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Wigmore on Evidence) (Chadbourn rev. 1972), Little, Brown. [(4: 51)]
Wigmore, (1978). 7 Wigmore, John H., Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Wigmore on Evidence) (Chadbourn rev. 1978), Little, Brown. [(4: 101)]
Wigmore, (1981). 9 Wigmore, John H., Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Wigmore on Evidence) (Chadbourn rev. 1981), Little, Brown. [(1: 11) (2: 270) (4: 176) (6: 1)]
Wigmore, (1983). 1A Wigmore, John H., Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Wigmore on Evidence) (Tillers rev. 1983), Little, Brown. [(1: 35) (4: 4)]
Wright, et al. (1982). Wright, Charles Alan, Miller, Arthur R., & Cooper, Edward H., Federal Practice and Procedure (2d ed.), West Publishing Co. [(2: 65)]
Zamir, & Ritov, (2012). Zamir, Eyal & Ritov, Ilana, Loss aversion, omission bias, and the burden of proof in civil litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 41: 165–207. [(2: 59, 61)]
