Abel Lluch, X. (2009). La prueba pericial. In Lluch, Abel and Picó i Junoy, eds., La prueba pericial, Barcelona: J. M. Bosch, pp. 15–248.Google Scholar

Allen, R. (2015). A Proposed Evidence Law. Boston University International Law Journal, vol. 33(2), 359–94.Google Scholar

Allen, R. and Miller, J. S. (1993). The Common Law Theory of Experts. Deference or education?. Northwestern University Law Review, 87(4), 1131–47.Google Scholar

Appazov, A. (2016). Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice, Copenhagen: Springer.Google Scholar

Bachmaier, L. (2009). Dos modelos de prueba pericial penal en el derecho comparado: Estados Unidos de Norteamérica y Alemania. Jueces para la democracia, 66, 118–37.Google Scholar

Dror, I. E. (2018). Biases in forensic experts. Science, 2360(6386), 243 ff.Google Scholar

EGLE- European Guide for Legal Expertise. (2015). Guía de buenas prácticas de la pericia judicial civil en la Unión Europea. https://experts-institute.eu/en/projects/the-guide-to-good-practices-in-civil-judicial-expertise-in-the-european-union/Google Scholar

Gross, S. R. (1991). Expert Evidence. Wisconsin Law Review, 1991, 1113–232.Google Scholar

Hooper, L., Cecil, J. and Willging, T. (2001). Neutral Science Panels: Two Examples of Panels of Court-Appointed Experts in the Breast Implants Product Liability Litigation, Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar

Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. and Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive Bias and Blindness: A Global Survey of Forensic Science Examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 452–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laguna, M. del P. and Palomo, J. (2008). La prueba pericial económica en el ámbito procesal español, Madrid: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.Google Scholar

Muñoz Sabaté, L. (2001) Fundamentos de prueba judicial civil, L.E.C 1/2000, Barcelona: J. Ma. Bosch.Google Scholar

Nieva Fenoll, J. (2017). Repensando Daubert: Elementos de convicción que debe tener un buen dictamen pericial. In Picó, J. i Junoy, , ed., Peritaje y prueba pericial, Barcelona: J. M. Bosch.Google Scholar

Orellana, de Castro, R. (2017). Un estudio crítico sobre los diferentes sistemas de designación de peritos y sobre las listas de peritos en la LEC. In Pico, J. i Junoy, ed., Peritaje y prueba pericial, Barcelona: J. M. Bosch.Google Scholar

Pardo, M. S. (2010). Evidence Theory and the NAS Report on Forensic Science. Utah Law Review, 2, 367–83.Google Scholar

Picó i Junoy, J. (2001). La prueba pericial en el proceso civil español, Ley 1/2000 de Enjuiciamiento Civil, Barcelona: Bosch Editor.Google Scholar

Saltzburg, S. A., Martin, M. M. and Capra, D. (2006). Federal Rules of Evidence Manual, 9th ed., vol. 3, San Francisco: Lexis Nexis.Google Scholar

Serra Domínguez, M. (2000). La prueba pericial. In Alonso-Cuevillas, J., ed., Instituciones del nuevo proceso civil. Comentarios sistemáticos a la Ley 1/2000 sobre Enjuiciamiento Civil, Barcelona: Difusión Jurídica.Google Scholar

Taruffo, M. (1996). La prova scientifiche nella recente esperienza statunitense. Rivista Trimestrale Di Diritto e Procedura Civile, 50(1), 219–49.Google Scholar

Vázquez, C. (2015). De la prueba científica a la prueba pericial, Barcelona-Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar

Vázquez, C. (2016). La prueba pericial en la experiencia estadounidense. Jueces para la democracia, 86, 92–112.Google Scholar

Vázquez, C. (2018). La im/parcialidad pericial y otros conceptos afines. Confiabilidad, desacuerdos y sesgos de los expertos. Isonomía, 48, 69–107.Google Scholar

Wigmore, J. H. (1904). A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 2nd ed. (1923), Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

Beavan, C. (2001). Fingerprints: The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science (London: Hyperion).Google Scholar

Campbell, A. (2011). The Fingerprint Inquiry Report (Edinburgh: APS Group).Google Scholar

Cole, S. (2001). Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

Cole, S. (2004). Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and Back Again. American Criminal Law Review, 41 (3), 1189–276.Google Scholar

Cole, S. (2009). Forensics Without Uniqueness, Conclusions Without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification. Law, Probability, and Risk, 8(3), 233–55.Google Scholar

Cole, S. (2014). Individualization Is Dead, Long Live Individualization! Reforms of Reporting Practices for Fingerprint Analysis in the United States. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(2), 117–50.Google Scholar

Cole, S. and Roberts, A. (2012). Certainty, Individualisation and the Subjective Nature of Expert Fingerprint Evidence. Criminal Law Review, 12, 824–49.Google Scholar

Devlin, P. (1979). The Judge, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dror, I. et al. (2006). Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duff, A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., eds. (2004). The Trial on Trial: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Edmond, G. (2015). Forensic Science Evidence and the Conditions for Rational (Jury) Evaluation. Melbourne University Law Review, 39(1), 77–127.Google Scholar

Edmond, G. (2019). Latent Science: A History of Australian Fingerprint Evidence in Australia. University of Queensland Law Journal, 38(2), 301–65.Google Scholar

Edmond, G. (2020). Fingerprint Evidence in New Zealand Courts: The Oversight of Overstatement. New Zealand Universities Law Review, 29, 1–29.Google Scholar

Edmond, G. and Cunliffe, E. (2016). Cinderella Story? The Social Production of a Forensic ‘Science’. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106(2), 219–73Google Scholar

Edmond, G. and San Roque, M. (2012). The Cool Crucible: Forensic Science and the Frailty of the Criminal Trial. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 51–68.Google Scholar

Edmond, G. et al. (2014). Evidence-Based Forensic Initiative. How to Cross-Examine Forensic Scientists: A Guide for Lawyer. Australian Bar Review, 39, 174–97.Google Scholar

Edmond, G., Hamer, D. and Cunliffe, E. (2016). A Little Ignorance Is a Dangerous Thing: Engaging with Exogenous Knowledge Not Adduced by the Parties. Griffith Law Review, 25(3), 383–413.Google Scholar

Edmond, G., Martire, K. and San Roque, M. (2017). Expert Reports in the Forensic Sciences. UNSW Law Journal, 40(2), 590–637.Google Scholar

Edmond, G., Tangen, J., Searston, R. and Dror, I. (2014). Contextual Bias and Cross-Contamination in the Forensic Sciences: The Implications for Investigations, Plea Bargains, Trials and Appeals. Law, Probability & Risk, 14, 1–25.Google Scholar

Edmond, G., Carr, S. and Piasecki, E. (2018). Science Friction: Streamlined Forensic Reporting. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(4), 764–792.Google Scholar

Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E. and Hamer, D. (2020). Fingerprint Comparison and Adversarialism: The Scientific and Historical Evidence. Modern Law Review, 83(6), 1287–327.Google Scholar

Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E., Martire, K. and San Roque, M. (2019). Forensic Science Evidence and the Limits of Cross-Examination. Melbourne University Law Review, 42(3), 858–920.Google Scholar

Evett, I. and Williams, R. (1996). Review of the Sixteen Points Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales. Journal of Forensic Identification, 46, 49.Google Scholar

Groebner, V. (2007). Who Are You? Identification, Deception and Surveillance in Early Modern Europe (New York: Zone).Google Scholar

Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook (Oxford: Wiley).Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2005). Law’s Knowledge: Science for Justice in Legal Settings. American Journal of Public Health, 95(S1), 49–58.Google Scholar

Lander, E. (2017). Response to the ANZFSS council statement on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report. Australian Journal of Forensic Science, 49, 1.Google Scholar

Law Commission of England and Wales. (2011). Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, 34 Law Commission Report No 325 (HMSO, London).Google Scholar

Leo, R. and Drizin, S. (2004). The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891.Google Scholar

Lynch, M., Cole, S., McNally, R. and Jordan, K. (2008). Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Evidence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 237–41.Google Scholar

Morling, T. (1987). Report of the Commissioner the Hon Mr Justice TR Morling: Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Chamberlain Convictions (Canberra: Government Printer).Google Scholar

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2012). Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach (US Department of Commerce).Google Scholar

National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Academies Press), 142–3 (NRC Report).Google Scholar

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (Report, 20 September 2016).Google Scholar

Roberts, R., Wilmore, C. and Davis, G. (1993). The Role of Forensic Science Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study No 11 (London: HMSO).Google Scholar

Runciman, V. (1993). Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (London: HMSO).Google Scholar

Saks, M. and Faigman, D. (2008). Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It. Annual Review of Law & Social Science, 4, 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saks, M. and Koehler, J. (2005). The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science. Science, 309, 892–5.Google Scholar

Sengoopta, C. (2003). Imprint of the Raj: How Fingerprinting Was Born in Colonial India (London: PanMacMillan).Google Scholar

Tangen, J., Thompson, M. and McCarthy, D. (2011). Identifying Fingerprint Expertise. Psychological Science, 22, 995–7.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. (2005). Analyzing the Relevance and Admissibility of Bullet-Lead Evidence: Did the NRC Report Miss the Target? Jurimetrics Journal, 46(1), 65–89.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. et al. (2017). Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis – Latent Fingerprint Examination (AAAS) (AAAS Report).Google Scholar

Torpey, J. and Caplan, J. (eds). (2001). Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar

Ulery, B. et al. (2011). Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Fingerprint Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 773–8.Google Scholar

Ulery, B. et al. (2012). Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners. PloS One, 7, e32800.Google Scholar

Ulery, B. et al. (2014). Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations. Plos One, 9, e110179.Google Scholar

United States Department of Justice. (2006). A Review of the FBI’s Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case (US Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Oversight and Review Division).Google Scholar

Walker, C. and Starmer, K. (eds.). (1999). Miscarriages of Justice: A Review of Justice in Error (London: Blackstone).Google Scholar

White, D. et al. (2014). Passport Officers’ Errors in Face Matching. PLoS ONE, 9(8), 1–6.Google Scholar

Allen, R. J. (2013). The Conceptual Challenge of Expert Evidence, Discusiones filosóficas, 14(23), 41–65.Google Scholar

Aitken, C. and Taroni, F. (2004). Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, 2nd ed., Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar

Allen, R. J. and Miller, J. S. (1993). The Common Law Theory of Experts: Deference or Education? Northwestern University Law Review, 87, 1131–47.Google Scholar

Balding, D. J. and Bucleton, J. (2009). Interpreting Low Template DNA Profiles, Forensic Science International: Genetics, 4(1), 1–10.Google Scholar

Beety, V. E. (2016). Cops in Lab Coats and Forensic in the Courtrooms, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 13(2), 543–65.Google Scholar

Biedermann, A., Vuille, J., Taroni, F. and Champod, C. (2015). The Need for Reporting Standards in Forensic Science, Law, Probability and Risk, 14 (2), 169–73.Google Scholar

Cao, K. and Jain, A. K. (2017). Automated Latent Fingerprints Recognition, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 41(4), 788–800.Google Scholar

Carr, S., Piasecki, E., Tully, G. and Wilson, T. J. (2016). Opening the Scientific Expert’s Black Box, Journal of Criminal Law, 80(5), 364–86.Google Scholar

Carracedo, A. (1999). Valoración de la prueba del ADN, in La prueba del ADN en la medicina forense. La genética al servicio de la ley, Jarreta, B. Martínez ed., Barcelona: Masson.Google Scholar

Champod, C. and Vuille, J. (2011). Scientific Evidence in Europe. Admissibility, Appraisal and Equality of Arms, International Commentary on Evidence, 9 (1), 1–68.Google Scholar

Chin, J. and Workewych, L. (2016). The CSI Effect, Oxford Handbooks Online, DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935352.013.28.Google Scholar

Cole, S. (2009). Forensics without Uniqueness, Conclusions without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification, Law, Probability and Risk 8(3), 233–55.Google Scholar

Cole, S. (2012). Forensic Science and Wrongful Convictions: From Exposer, to Contributor to Corrector, New England Law Review, 46, 711–36.Google Scholar

Cole, S. and Dioso-Villa, R. (2009). Investigating the CSI Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law, Stanford Law Review 61(6), 1335–74.Google Scholar

Cooley, C. and Turvey, B. (2014). Miscarriages of Justice. Actual Evidence, Forensic Evidence and the Law, Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Cunliffe, E. and Edmond, G. (2017). Reviewing Wrongful Convictions in Canada, Criminal Law Quarterly, 64 (3–4), 473–86.Google Scholar

Dror, I. (2016). A Hierarchy of Expert Performance, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(2), 121–7.Google Scholar

Dror, I. (2018). Biases in Forensic Experts, Science, 360 (6386), 243.Google Scholar

Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., and Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications, Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–8.Google Scholar

Dror, I. and Rosenthal, R. (2008). Meta-Analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 900–3.Google Scholar

Dror, I., Thompson, W., Meissner, , Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M. and Risinger, M. (2015). Context Management Toolboox: A Linear Sequential Unmasquing (LSU) Approach for Minimizing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decision Making, Journal of Forensic Siences, 60(4), 1111–12.Google Scholar

Fabricant, C. and Carrington, W. T. (2016). The Shifted Paradigm: Forensic Sciences‘s Overdue Evolution from Magic to Law, Virginia Journal of Criminal Law, 4(1), 1–115.Google Scholar

Garret, B. L. (2014). Wrongful Convictions and the Role of Forensic Science, in Jamieson, A. and Moenssens, A. eds., Wiley Online Encyclopaedia of Forensic Science, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Garret, B. and Neufeld, P. (2009). Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions, Virginia Law Review, 95 (1), 1–97.Google Scholar

Garret, B. and Mitchell, G. (2013). How Jurors Evaluate Fingerprint Evidence: The Relative Importance of Match Language, Method Information, and Error Acknowledgment, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 484–511.Google Scholar

Gascón, M. (2016). Conocimientos expertos y deferencia del juez. Apuntes para la superación de un problema, DOXA. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 39, 347–65.Google Scholar

Grace, V., Midgley, G., Veth, J. and Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2011). Forensic DNA Evidence on Trial: Science and Uncertainty in the Courtroom. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.Google Scholar

Guerra Thompson, A. (2015). Cops in Lab Coats. Curbing Wrongful Convictions through Independent Forensic Laboratories, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar

Haack, S. (2015). The Expert Witness: Lessons from the U.S. Experience, Humana Mente, 28(2015), 39–70.Google Scholar

Huber, P. (1991). Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, New York: New York Basic Books.Google Scholar

Igartua, J. (2007). Prueba científica y decisión judicial: unas anotaciones propedéuticas, Diario La Ley, 6812 (2/11).Google Scholar

Jamieson, A. and Boder, S., eds. (2016). A Guide to Forensic DNA Profiling, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Jiang, N. (2016). Wrongful Convictions in China. Comparative and Empirical Perspectives, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Kaye, D. H. (2010). Probability, Individualization and Uniqueness in Forensic Science: Listening to the Academies, Brooklyn Law Review, 75(4), 1163–86.Google Scholar

Koehler, J. (2014). Forensic Fallacies and a Famous Judge, Jurimetrics, 54(3), 211–19.Google Scholar

Koehler, J., Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J. and Macquiston, D. E. (2016). Science, Technology, or the Expert Witness: What Influences Jurors‘ Judgments About Forensic Science Testimony? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 22(4), 401–13.Google Scholar

Kloosterman, A., Sjerps, M. and Quak, A. (2014). Error Rates in Forensic DNA Analysis: Definition, Numbers, Impact and Communication, Forensic Science International: Genetics, 12, 77–85.Google Scholar

Kloostroom, A. (2014). Framework for Registration, Classification and Evaluation of errors in the Forensic DNA Typing Process, Nederlands Forensich Instituut. Available: www.nist.gov/forensics/upload/Kloosterman-DNA.pdf.Google Scholar

Leung, W. C. (2002). The Prosecutor’s Fallacy – A Pitfall in Interpreting Probabilities in Forensic Evidence, Medicine Science and the Law, 42(1), 44–50.Google Scholar

Lucena, J. J., Gascón, M. and Pardo, V. (2015). Technical Support for a Judge when Assessing A Priori Odds, Law, Probability and Risk, 14(2), 147–68.Google Scholar

Martire, K. A. and Edmond, G. (2017). ‘Rethinking Expert Opinion Evidence’, Melbourne University Law Review, 40 (3), 967–98.Google Scholar

Mcquiston-Surrett, D. and Saks, M. J. (2009). The Testimony of Forensic Identification Science: What Expert Witnesses Say and What Facfinders Hear’, Law and Human Behaviour, 33(5), 436–53.Google Scholar

Meester, R., Collins, M., Gill, R., and Van Lambalgen, M. (2006). On the (ab) Use of Statistics in the Legal Case against the nurse Lucia de B. Law, Probability and Risk, 5(3–4), 233–50.Google Scholar

Metzger, P. (2006). Cheating the Constitution, Vanderbilt Law Review, 59(2),475–538.Google Scholar

Mnookin, J. (2010). The Courts, the NAS, and the Future of Forensic Science, Brooklyn Law Review, 75 (4), 1208–75.Google Scholar

Murphy, E. (2015). Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA, New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar

National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (2009). Report, Strengthening Scientific Evidence in the United States: A Path Forward, Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Office of the Inspector General. US Department of Justice, 2006: Report on Mayfield: A Review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case. www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0601/final.pdf.Google Scholar

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), (2016) Report, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf.Google Scholar

Roberts, P. (2013). ¿Fue el bebé sacudido? Prueba, pericia y epistemología jurídica en el proceso penal inglés, in Estándares de prueba y prueba científica, C. Vázquez, ed., Madrid: Marcial Pons, 135–80.Google Scholar

Roberts, P. and Redmayne, M., eds. (2007). Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching, Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. (2005). The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Science, Science 309(5736), 892–5.Google Scholar

Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. (2008). The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence, Vanderbilt Law Review, 61(1), 199–219.Google Scholar

Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. (2010). Individualization Claims in Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted, Brooklyn Law Review, 75(4), 1187–208.Google Scholar

Saks, M. J., Albright, T., Bohan, T. L., Bierer, B. E., Bowers, C. M., Bush, M. A. et al. (2016). Forensic Bitemark Identification: Weak Foundations, Exaggerated Claims. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3(3), 538–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schweitzer, N. J. and Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects Public Expectations About Real Forensic Science, Jurimetrics 47, 357–64.Google Scholar

Taroni, F., Aitken, C., Garbolino, P. and Biedermann, A. (2006) Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar

The Law Comission (2009) Report The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales. A New Approach to the Determination of Evidentiary Reliability, www.lawcom.gov.uk/expert_evidence.htm.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. C. (2006). Tarnish on the ‘Gold Standard’: Understanding Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing. The Champion, 30(1), 10–16.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. C. (2009). Letter to the Editor – The Prosecutor’s Fallacy in George Clarke’s. Justice and Science: Trials and Triumphs of DNA Evidence, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(2), 504–5.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. C. and Chumann, E. (1987). Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials. The Prosecutor’s Fallacy and the Defense Attorney Fallacy, Law and Human Behaviour 11(3), 167–87.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. C., Vuille, J., Taroni, F., Biedermann, A., (2018). After Uniqueness: The Evolution of Forensic Science Opinions, Judicature, 102(1), 18–27.Google Scholar

Twining, W. (2009). De nuevo, los hechos en serio, DOXA, 32, 317–39.Google Scholar

Twining, W. (2013). Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence’, in Evidence, Inference and Inquiry, Dawid, P., Twinning, W. Vasilaki, M. , eds., British Academy Scholarship Online.Google Scholar

Ulery, B. T. et al. (2011). Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Fingerprint Decisions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (19). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018707108.Google Scholar

Vázquez, C. (2015). De la prueba científica a la prueba pericial, Madrid-Barcelona: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar

Zalman, M. (2018). Wrongful Convictions: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge Handbook of Social Problems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 448–80.Google Scholar

Arellano, J. (2017). Desafíos de la reforma procesal penal en Chile: análisis retrospectivo a más de una década, Santiago: Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Américas.Google Scholar

Beecher-Monas, E. (2007). Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blume, J. and Helm, R. (2014). The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty. Cornell Law Review, 113, 157–91.Google Scholar

Castillo, I. (2013). Enjuiciando al Proceso Penal Chileno desde el Inocentrismo (algunos apuntes sobre la necesidad de tomarse en serio a los inocentes). Revista Política Criminal, 8(15), 249–313.Google Scholar

Cutler, B. and Zapf, P. (2014). Introduction: The Definition, Breadth, and Importance of Forensic Psychology, in Cutler, B., Zapf, P. (editors in chief), APA Handbook of Forensic Psychology (Vol. 1), Washington: American Psychological Association, xvii–xxii.Google Scholar

Dennis, I. (2010). The Law of Evidence, England: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar

Dirección de Estudios de la Corte Suprema (2017). Peritajes en Chile, Santiago: Corte Suprema.Google Scholar

Duce, M. (2010). Admisibilidad de la prueba pericial en juicios orales: un modelo para armar en la jurisprudencia nacional, in Accatino, D, ed., Formación y valoración de la prueba en el proceso penal, Santiago: Abeledo Perrot, 45–86.Google Scholar

Duce, M. (2013). La prueba pericial, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Didot.Google Scholar

Duce, M. (2015). Algunas lecciones a partir de cuatro casos de condenas de inocentes en Chile. Revista de Derecho Universidad Católica del Norte, 22(1), 149–208.Google Scholar

Duce, M. (2016). Los informes en derecho nacional y su inadmisibilidad como prueba a juicio en el proceso penal chileno, Revista de Derecho Universidad Austral, XXIX(1), 297–327.Google Scholar

Duce, M. (2017a). Los recursos de revisión y la condena de inocentes en Chile: Una aproximación empírica en el período 2007–2016. Doctrina y Jurisprudencia Penal, 30, 3–40.Google Scholar

Duce, M. (2017b). Los reconocimientos oculares: una aproximación empírica a su funcionamiento y algunas recomendaciones para su mejora. Política Criminal, 12(23), 291–379.Google Scholar

Duce, M. (2018). Una aproximación empírica al uso y prácticas de la prueba pericial en el proceso penal chileno a la luz de su impacto en los errores del sistema. Política Criminal, 13(25), 42–103.Google Scholar

Edmond, G. (2011). Actual Innocents? Legal Limitations and Their Implications for Forensic Science and Medicine. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(2–3), 177–212.Google Scholar

Edmond, G. (2013). Introduction: Expert Evidence in Report and Courts. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(3), 248–62.Google Scholar

Edmond, G. (2015). Forensic Science Evidence and the Conditions for Rational (Jury) Evaluation. Melbourne University Law Review, 39(1), 77–127.Google Scholar

Ferrer, J. (2010). La prueba es libertad, pero no tanto. Una teoría de la prueba cuasi-benthamiana, in Accatino, D., ed., Formación y valoración de la prueba en el proceso penal, Santiago: Abeledo Perrot, 3–19.Google Scholar

Findley, K. (2011–2012). Adversarial Inquisitions: Rethinking the Search for the Truth, New York Law School Law Review, 56, 912–41.Google Scholar

Forst, B. (2013). Wrongful Convictions in a World of Miscarriages of Justice, Huff, R. and Killias, M., eds., Wrongful Conviction and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems, New York: Routledge, 15–43.Google Scholar

Freckelton, I. (2009). Scientific Evidence, in Freckelton, I., and Selby, H., eds., Expert Evidence, 4th ed., Victoria: Thomson Reuters, 1120–36.Google Scholar

Freckelton, I., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Horan, J. and McKimmie, B. (2016). Expert Evidence and Criminal Jury Trials, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee Working Group (2004). Report on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice, Canada: Department of Justice.Google Scholar

FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee (2011). The Path to Justice: Preventing Wrongful Convictions, Canada: FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee.Google Scholar

Garret, B. (2011). Convicting the Innocent, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Garret, B. and Naufeld, P. (2009). Invalid Forensic Testimony and Wrongful Convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1–97.Google Scholar

Gascón, M. (2013). Prueba Científica. Un Mapa de Retos, in Vázquez, C. ed., Estándares de Prueba y Prueba Científica, Madrid: Marcial Pons, 181–202.Google Scholar

Gilliéron, G. (2013). Wrongful Convictions in Switzerland: A Problem of Summary Proceedings. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80(4), 1145–65.Google Scholar

Gold, A. (2003). Expert Evidence in Criminal Law: The Scientific Approach, Canada: Irving Law.Google Scholar

Gould, J., Carrano, J., Leo, R. and Hail Jares, K. (2014). Predicting Erroneous Convictions. Iowa Law Review, 99, 471–522.Google Scholar

Gould, J., Carrano, J, Leo, R. and Hail Jares, K. (2014). Innocent Defendants: Divergent Cases Outcomes and What They Teach Us, in Zalman, M. and Carrano, J., eds., Wrongful Conviction and Criminal Justice Reform, New York: Routledge, 73–89.Google Scholar

Gould, J., Carrano, J, Leo, R. and Young, J. (2013) Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice, USA, National Institute of Justice. Available at: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241389.pdf.Google Scholar

Gould, J. and Leo, R. (2016). The Path to Exoneration, University of San Francisco Law Research Paper, 2016-3.Google Scholar

Gross, S. (2008). Convicting the Innocent. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 173–92.Google Scholar

Gross, S. (2008). Convicting the Innocent, Working Paper no. 103, University of Michigan Law School.Google Scholar

Gross, S., O’Brien, B., Hu, C. and Kennedy, E. H. (2014). Rate of False Convictions of Criminal Defendants Who Are Sentenced to Death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 11(20), 7230–5.Google Scholar

Haack, S. (2003). Inquiry and Advocacy, Fallibilism and Finality: Culture and Inference in Science and the Law. Law, Probability and Risk, 2, 205–14.Google Scholar

Harris, D. (2012). Failed Evidence, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Hirshberg, M., (1969). La Sentencia Errónea en el Proceso Penal, Banzhaf, T. trans., Buenos Aires: Ediciones Jurídicas Europa-América.Google Scholar

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2005). Forensic Science on Trial, London: The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar

Huff, R. and Killias, M., eds. (2010). Wrongful Conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

Huff, R. and Killias, M., eds. (2013). Wrongful Convictions and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jiahong, H. (2016) Back from the Dead: Criminal Justice and Wrongful Convictions in China, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

King, J. (2013). Beyond Life and Liberty: The Evolving Right to Counsel. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 48, 1–48.Google Scholar

Mauet, T. (2007). Estudios de técnicas de litigación, K. Ventura and L. M., trans., Perú: Jurista Editores.Google Scholar

Ministry of Justice (2013). The Government’s Response to the Law Commission Report: Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, England: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar

Natapoff, A. (2012). Misdemeanors. Southern California Law Review, 85, 101–63.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar

Naughton, M. (2013). The Innocent and the Criminal Justice System. A Sociological Analysis of Miscarriages of Justice, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Risinger, M. (2007). Innocent Convicted: An Empirically Justified Wrongful Conviction Rate. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97(3), 761–806.Google Scholar

Roach, K. (2009). Forensic Science and Miscarriages of Justice: Some Lessons from a Comparative Perspective. Jurimetrics, 50, 67–92.Google Scholar

Roach, K. (2010). Wrongful Convictions: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Themes, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35 (2), 387–446.Google Scholar

Roberts, J. (2011). Why Misdemeanors Matter: Defining Effective Advocacy in Lower Criminal Courts. University of California Davis Law Review, 45, 277–372.Google Scholar

Roxin, C. (2003). Derecho Procesal Penal, 25th ed., G. Córdoba and D. Pastor, trans., Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto.Google Scholar

Sacks, M. and Spellman, B. (2016). The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Schauer, F. and Spellman, B. (2013). Is Expert Evidence Really Different? Notre Dame Law Review, 89, 1–26.Google Scholar

Simon, D. (2012). In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Taruffo, M. (2008). La Prueba, L. Manríquez and J. Ferrer Beltrán (translators), Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar

The Law Commission (2009). The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, Consultation Paper no. 190, London: The Law Commission.Google Scholar

The Law Commission (2011). Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, Law Com. No. 325, London: Stationary Office.Google Scholar

Thomas, S. (2015). Addressing Wrongful Convictions: An Examination of Texas´s New Junk Science Writ and Other Measures for Protecting the Innocent, Houston Law Review, 52, 1037–68.Google Scholar

Wells, G., Greathouse, S. and Smalarz, L. (2012). Why Do Motions to Suppress Suggestive Eyewitness Identifications Fail? in Cutlered, B. ed., Conviction of the Innocent, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 167–84.Google Scholar