,Academy of Experts, Code of Guidance for Experts and Those Instructing Them, 2nd edn (London: Academy of Experts, 2001)Google Scholar

Aigler, R. and Yates, I. ‘The Triangle of Culture, Inference and Litigation System’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk137–50Google Scholar

Alexy, R.A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar

Allen, C.The Law of Evidence in Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar

Allibone, T. ‘The Club of the Royal College of Physicians, the Smeatonian Society of Civil Engineers and their Relationship to the Royal Society Club’ (1967) 22 Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London186–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, R. and Pichert, J. ‘Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift in Perspective’ (1978) 17 Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, T. ‘On Generalizations I: A Preliminary Exploration’ (1999) 40 South Texas Law Review455–81Google Scholar

Anderson, T. ‘Wigmore Meets “The Last Wedge”’, in Twining, W. and Hampsher-Monk, I. (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003), pp. 140–215Google Scholar

Anderson, T., Schum, D. and Twining, W.Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Angell, M.Science on Trial: the Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in The Breast Implant Case (New York: Norton, 1996)Google Scholar

Anscombe, G. ‘On Brute Facts’ (1958) 18 Analysis69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atiyah, P. and Summers, R.Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987)Google Scholar

Aubry, C. and Rau, C.Cours de droit civil français, 5th edn (Paris: Billard, 1922)Google Scholar

Auld, R.Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001)Google Scholar

Bacon, F.Advancement of Learning (London: 1605)Google Scholar

Bailey, R. ‘Overcoming Veriphobia – Learning to Love Truth Again’ (2001) 49 British Journal of Educational Studies159–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bainham, A.Children: The Modern Law, 2nd edn (Bristol: Jordan Publishing, 1998)Google Scholar

Baker, J.An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th edn (London: Butterworths, 2002)Google Scholar

Bardet-Giraudon, M. ‘The Place of the Expert in the French Legal System’, in Spencer, J., Nicholson, G., Flin, R. and Bull, R. (eds.), Children's Evidence in Legal Proceedings. An International Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge Law Faculty, 1990), pp. 68–70Google Scholar

Barnes, B., Bloor, D. and Henry, J.Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)Google Scholar

Basten, J. ‘The Court Expert in Civil Trials – A Comparative Appraisal’ (1977) 41 Modern Law Review174–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beardsley, J. ‘Proof of Fact in French Civil Procedure’ (1986) 34 American Journal of Comparative Law459–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Becker, S. ‘Child Sexual Abuse Allegations against a Lesbian or Gay Parent in a Custody or Visitation Dispute: Battling the Overt and Insidious Bias of Experts and Judges’ (1996) 74 Denver University Law Review75–158Google Scholar

Beecher-Monas, E.Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benn, A.The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1906)Google Scholar

Bentham, J.Rationale of Judicial Evidence (London, 1827)Google Scholar

Bentham, J.Traité des preuves judiciaires (Paris: 1823)Google Scholar

Berger, P., and Luckmann, T.The Social Construction of Reality (London: Allen Lane, 1966)Google Scholar

Bergmann, G.Philosophy of Science (Madison WI: Wisconsin University Press, 1957)Google Scholar

Berkeley, G.Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), ed. Woolhouse, R. (London: Penguin, 1988)Google Scholar

Bernstein, D. ‘Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution’ (2007) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series07–11 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=963461 (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Bertelsen, K. ‘From Specialized Courts to Specialized Juries: Calling For Professional Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1998) 3 Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy1Google Scholar

Best, W.Principles of the Law of Evidence and Practice as to Proofs in Courts of Common Law (London: Sweet, 1849)Google Scholar

Best, W.Principles of the Law of Evidence and Practice as to Proofs in Courts of Common Law, 2nd edn (London: Sweet, 1854)Google Scholar

Best, W.A Treatise on Presumptions of Law and Fact with the Theory and Rules of Presumptive or Circumstantial Proof in Criminal Cases (London: Sweet, 1844)Google Scholar

Beuscher, J. ‘The Use of Experts by the Courts’ (1941) 54 Harvard Law Review1105–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R.Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar

Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D. ‘Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations’ (2003) 11 Artificial Intelligence and Law125–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bex, F. van den Braak, Oostendorp, S., Prakken, H., Verheij, B. and Vreeswijk, G. ‘Sense-making Software for Crime Investigation: How to Combine Stories and Arguments?’ (2007) 6 Law Probability and Risk145–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bingham, T. ‘Hired Gun Takes a Bullet’ (2005) 5 Building50Google Scholar

Bishop, M. and Trout, J.Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar

Blom-Cooper, L. ‘Experts and Assessors: Past, Present and Future’ (2002) 21 Civil Justice Quarterly341–456Google Scholar

Blom-Cooper, L. ‘Historical Background’, in Blom-Cooper, L. (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

Blom-Cooper, L. (ed.) Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)

BonJour, L.The Structure of Empirical Knowledge (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1985)Google Scholar

Bonnier, É.Traité théorique et pratique des preuves en droit civil et en droit criminal, 2nd edn (Paris: Durand, 1852)Google Scholar

Bornstein, B. ‘The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?’ (1999) 23 Law and Human Behaviour75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bourcier, D. and Bonis, M.Les paradoxes de l'expertise: savoir ou juger? (Paris: Institut Synthélab, 1999)Google Scholar

Bowden, P., Croall, P. and Parker, R.The Woolf Reforms in Practice: Freshfields Assess the Changing Landscape (London: Butterworths, 1999)Google Scholar

Bower, G., Black, J. and Turner, T. ‘Scripts in Memory for Texts’ (1979) 11 Cognitive Psychology177–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boyd, R. ‘On the Current Status of Scientific Realism’ (1983) 19 Erkenntnis45–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brad Wray, K. ‘Science, Biases, and the Threat of Global Pessimism’ (2001) 68 Philosophy of ScienceS467–S478CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brewer, S. ‘Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process’ (1998) 103 Yale Law Journal1535–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar

British Trials 1660–1900: The Guide to the Microfiche Edition Containing a Full Bibliographical Listing Together with Nine Indexes (Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1990)

Brophy, J., Bates, P., Brown, L., Cohen, S. and Radcliffe, P.Expert Evidence in Child Protection Litigation – Where Do We Go From Here? (London: The Stationery Office, 1999)Google Scholar

Brubaker, R.The Limits of Rationality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Thought of Max Weber (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984)Google Scholar

Brumfiel, G. ‘Misconduct? It's All Academic…’ (2007) 445 Nature240–1Google Scholar

Brundage, J. ‘The Calumny Oath and Ethical Ideas of Canonical Advocates’, in Landau, P. and Müller, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law: Monumenta iuris canonici: Subsidia vol. 10 (Vatican City: 1997), pp. 793–805Google Scholar

Brundage, J. ‘The Ethics of the Legal Profession: Mediaeval Canonists and their Clients’ (1973) 33 Jurist237–48Google Scholar

Bryson, W.Cases Concerning Equity and the Courts of Equity 1550–1660, 2 vols., folios 117 and 118 (London: Selden Society, 2000 and 2001)Google Scholar

Burn, S.Successful Use of Expert Witnesses in Civil Disputes (Crayford: Shaw and Sons, 2005)Google Scholar

Burn, S. and Thompson, B. ‘Single Joint Expert’, in Blom-Cooper, L. (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 57–75Google Scholar

Burns, R.A Theory of the Trial (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)Google Scholar

Cadiet, L. ‘The New French Code of Civil Procedure (1975)’, in Rhee, C. (ed.), European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), pp. 49–68Google Scholar

Cadiet, L. (ed.) Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004)

Cadiet, L. and Jeuland, E.Droit judiciaire privé, 5th edn (Paris: Litec, 2006)Google Scholar

Cappelletti, M. and Perillo, J.Civil Procedure in Italy (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carson, D.Professionals and the Courts – A Handbook for Expert Witnesses (Birmingham: Venture Press, 1990)Google Scholar

Carter, F. ‘Court Order Violations, Witness Coaching, and Obstructing Access to Witnesses: An Examination of the Unethical Attorney Conduct that Nearly Derailed the Moussaoui Trial’ (2007) 20 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics463–74Google Scholar

‘The Case for Special Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal1155–76CrossRef

Chase, O. ‘Legal Processes and National Culture’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law1–24Google Scholar

Check, E. and Cyranoski, D. ‘Korean Scandal will have Global Fallout’ (2005) 438 Nature1056–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chesebro, K. ‘Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship’ (1993) 42 American University Law Review1637–726Google Scholar

Chiarloni, S. ‘Civil Justice and its Paradoxes: An Italian Perspective’, in Zuckerman, A., Chiarloni, S. and Gottwald, P., Civil Justice in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 263–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chiovenda, G.Principii di diritto processuale civile: le azioni, il processo di cognizione, 3rd edn (Naples: Eugenio Jovene, 1965)Google Scholar

,Civil Justice Council, Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims (London: 2005)Google Scholar

Clendinnen, J. ‘Ratifying Foundherentism’, in Waal, C. (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 73–87Google Scholar

Coady, A.Testimony: A Philosophical Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar

Cohen, J.The Probable and the Provable (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coke, E.Institutes of the Laws of England (London: 1628, 1642, 1644)Google Scholar

Collingwood, R. ‘On the So-Called Idea of Causation’ (1937–8) 38 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society85–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, H. ‘Scientific Evidence: A Common Sense Approach Is Needed’ (1996) 4 Expert Evidence156–58Google Scholar

‘,Competing Financial Interests’, www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/competing.html (last accessed 1 August 2008)

‘,Conflict of Interest Disclosure’, www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/prep/coi.shtml (last accessed 1 August 2008)

Consett, H.Practice of the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Courts (London: Basset, 1685)Google Scholar

Cooper, J., Bennett, E. and Sukel, H. ‘Complex Scientific Testimony: How Do Jurors Make Decisions?’ (1996) 20 Law and Human Behaviour379–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cooper, P. ‘Training’, in Blom-Cooper, L. (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 149–57Google Scholar

Corfield, P.Power and the Professions in Britain 1700–1850 (London: Routledge, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cory-Pearce, R. ‘The Three Princes of Serendip or the Happy Avoidance of Accidents’, Society of Expert Witnesses, March 1998, www.sew.org.uk/dispatch/three_princes.htm (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

,Cour de cassation, Le nouveau code de procédure civile: vingt ans après (Paris: La Documentation Française, 1998)Google Scholar

‘,Court Work Ban for Clark Doctor’ BBC News, 3 June 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4595839.stm (last accessed 1 August 2008)

Cox, N. ‘The Influence of the Common Law on the Decline of the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England’ (2001) 3 Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_3.pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Craig, P.Administrative Law, 5th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003)Google Scholar

Crawford, C. ‘Legalizing Medicine: Early Modern Legal Systems and the Growth of Medico-legal Knowledge’, in Clark, M. and Crawford, C., Legal Medicine in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 89–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cretney, S., Masson, J. and Bailey-Harris, R.Principles of Family Law, 7th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003)Google Scholar

Cross, A.Evidence (London: Butterworth, 1958)Google Scholar

Damaška, M. ‘Epistemology and Legal Regulation of Proof’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk117–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Damaška, M.Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997)Google Scholar

Damaška, M. ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure’ (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review506–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Damaška, M.The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1986)Google Scholar

Damaška, M. ‘Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review1083–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Damaška, M. ‘Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law25–39Google Scholar

Damaška, M. ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal289–308Google Scholar

David, M. ‘The Correspondence Theory of Truth’, in Zalta, E. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/truth-correspondence/ (last accessed 14 December 2007)

Davies, G. ‘Court Appointed Experts’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly367–85Google Scholar

Davies, G. ‘Recent Australian Developments: A Response to Peter Heerey’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly396–9Google Scholar

Day, J. and Gat, L.Expert Evidence under the CPR: A Compendium of Cases from April 1999 to April 2001 (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2001)Google Scholar

Roche-Flavin, B.Arrests notables du parlement de Toulouse, ed. Caranove, N. (Toulouse: 1745)Google Scholar

Deichmann, U. and Müller-Hill, B. ‘The Fraud of Abderhalden's Enzymes’ (1998) 393 Nature109–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dennis, I.The Law of Evidence, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2002)Google Scholar

Descartes, R.Discours de la méthode (Paris: 1637)Google Scholar

Devine, D., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Stolle, D. and Studebaker, N. ‘Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries’ (2007) 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies273–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, A. ‘The Province and Function of Assessors in English Courts’ (1970) 33 Modern Law Review494–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobbin, S., Gatowski, S., Richardson, J., Ginsburg, G., Merlino, M. and Dahir, V. ‘Applying Daubert: How Well Do Judges Understand Science and Scientific Method?’ (2002) 85 Judicature244–7Google Scholar

Dror, I. and Charlton, D. ‘Why Experts Make Errors’ (2006) 56 Journal of Forensic Identification600–16Google Scholar

Dror, I., Charlton, D. and Peron, A. ‘Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications’ (2006) 156 Forensic Science International74–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Duxbury, N. ‘Jerome Frank and the Legacy of Legal Realism’ (1991) 18 Journal of Law and Society175–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, R.Justice in Robes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006)Google Scholar

Dworkin, R.Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1977)Google Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘Beyond Autonomy: the Role of Dignity in “Biolaw”’ (2003) 23 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies319–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘Changing Approaches to Expert Evidence in England and Italy’ (2002) 1 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 2, art. 4, www.bepress.com/ice/vol1/iss2/art4 (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘Closed Evidence, Reasonable Suspicion and Torture’ (2005) 9 Evidence and Proof126–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘The Duties of Expert Witnesses of Fact and Opinion’ (2003) 7 Evidence and Proof264–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘Expert Evidence in the English Civil Courts, 1550–1800’ (2007) 28 Journal of Legal History93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘Is a Finding that a Person Deemed Unfit to be Tried “did the act…charged against him” Compatible with Article 6 ECHR?’ (2003) 67 Journal of Criminal Law307–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘Is Man the Rational Animal?’, BA dissertation, University of Southampton (1996)Google Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘Knowledge, Truth and Justification in Legal Fact Finding’ (2007) 1(4) Reasoner5–6, www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/jw/TheReasoner/vol1/TheReasoner-1 (4).pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘Legal Remedies for the Negligent Expert’ (2008) 12 Evidence and Proof 93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dwyer, D. ‘What Does it Mean to be Free? The Concept of Free Proof in the Western European Legal Tradition’ (2005) 3 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 1, art. 6, www.bepress.com/ice/vol3/iss1/art6 (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Ebsworth, E. ‘Accreditation: A Novel Approach’, in Blom-Cooper, L. (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 17–28Google Scholar

Eco, U.Il nome della rosa, 47th edn (Milan: Tascabili Bompiani, 2001)Google Scholar

‘,Editorial’ Counsel November/December 1994

Edmond, G. ‘After Objectivity: Expert Evidence and Procedural Reform’ (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review131–64Google Scholar

Edmond, G. ‘Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence’ (2000) 63 Modern Law Review216–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edmond, G. (ed.) Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004)

Edmond, G. and Mercer, D. ‘Daubert and the Exclusionary Ethos: The Convergence of Corporate and Judicial Attitudes Towards the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Tort Litigation’ (2004) 26 Law and Policy231–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edmond, G. and Mercer, D. ‘Experts and Expertise in Legal and Regulatory Settings’, in Edmond, G. (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), pp. 1–31Google Scholar

Edmond, G. and Mercer, D. ‘The Invisible Branch: The Authority of Science Studies in Expert Evidence Jurisprudence’, in Edmond, G. (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004) pp. 197–291Google Scholar

Edwards, S. ‘Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice Considered’ [2003] Criminal Law Review525–40Google Scholar

Eekelaar, J. ‘The Emergence of Children's Rights’ (1986) 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies161–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eggleston, R.Evidence, Proof and Probability (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978)Google Scholar

Einstein, A. ‘Physics and Reality’, in Bargmann, S. (ed.), Ideas and Opinions of Albert Einstein (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), pp. 290–323Google Scholar

Eisen, A. ‘The Meanings and Confusion of Weberian “Rationality”’ (1978) 29 British Journal of Sociology57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Encinas de Munagorri, R. ‘La communauté scientifique est-elle un ordre juridique?’ [1998] Revue trimestrielle de droit civil247–83Google Scholar

,Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy, Cold Fusion Research (Washington DC: Energy Research Advisory Board, 1999) DOE/S–0073 DE90 005611Google Scholar

Engelhardt, H. and Caplan, A. (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)CrossRef

Epstein, L. and King, G. ‘The Rules of Inference’ (2002) 69 University of Chicago Law Review1–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erichson, H. ‘Mass Tort Litigation and Inquisitorial Justice’ (1999) 87 Georgetown Law Journal1983–2024Google ScholarPubMed

Erlanger, H. ‘Jury Research in America: Its Past and Future’ (1970) 4 Law and Society Review345–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans-Pritchard, E.Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937)Google Scholar

Feigenbaum, A. ‘Special Juries: Deterring Spurious Medical Malpractice Litigation in State Courts’ (2003) 24 Cardozo Law Review1361–420Google Scholar

Feldman, R. ‘Naturalized Epistemology’, in Zalta, E. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2006/entries/epistemology-naturalized/ (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Ferrarese, M. ‘An Entrepreneurial Conception of the Law? The American Model Through Italian Eyes’, in Nelken, D. (ed.), Comparing Legal Cultures (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), pp. 157–81Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. ‘Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism’, in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. III (Minneapolis MN: Minnesota University Press, 1962), pp. 28–97Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. ‘On the “Meaning” of Scientific Terms’ (1964) 61 Journal of Philosophy497–509Google Scholar

Forbes, T.Surgeons at the Bailey: English Forensic Medicine to 1878 (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1985)Google Scholar

Fordham, M.Judicial Review Handbook, 4th edn (Oxford: Hart, 2004)Google Scholar

Formulary (c. 1630) DRO. Chanter MS

Foucault, M.The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (London: Routledge, 1970)Google Scholar

Frank, J.Courts on Trial (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950)Google Scholar

Frank, J.Law and the Modern Mind (New York: Tudor, 1930)Google Scholar

Frankel, M. ‘The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review1031–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freckleton, I., Reddy, P. and Selby, H.Australian Judicial Perspectives on Expert Evidence: An Empirical Study (Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 1999)Google Scholar

Freckleton, I. and Selby, H.Expert Evidence (Sydney: LBC, 1993)Google Scholar

Freckmann, A. and Wegerich, T.The German Legal System (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1999)Google Scholar

Freemon, F. ‘The Origin of the Medical Expert Witness: The Insanity of Edward Oxford’ (2001) 22 Journal of Legal Medicine349–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Galanter, M. ‘The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts’ (2004) 1 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies459–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galilei, G.Dialogo Sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Florence: Giovanni Battista Landini, 1632)Google Scholar

Gallanis, T. ‘Legal History with 21st Century Tools: The English Reports on CD-ROM and Bracton on the Web’ (1999) 20 Journal of Legal History109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gallanis, T. ‘The Rise of Modern Evidence Law’ (1999) 84 Iowa Law Review499–560Google Scholar

Geller, M. ‘Wigmorean Analysis and the Survival of Cuneiform’, in Twining, W. and Hampsher-Monk, I. (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003), pp. 216–30Google Scholar

Gettier, E. ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ (1963) 23 Analysis121–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. and ,the ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar

Gilbert, G.The Law of Evidence (London: 1754)Google Scholar

Gilbert, G.The Law of Evidence, 4th edn, ed. Lofft, C. (Dublin: 1795)Google Scholar

Glenn, P.Legal Traditions of the World, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar

Golan, T. ‘The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in the English Courtroom’ (1999) 12 Science in Context7–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golan, T.Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2004)Google Scholar

Golan, T. ‘Scientific Expert Testimony in Anglo-American Courts, 1782–1923’, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1997Google Scholar

Goldman, A.Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldman, A.Pathways to Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldman, A. ‘Social Epistemology’, in Zalta, E. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2007 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/epistemology-social/ (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Goodall, F. ‘The Expert Witness: Partisan with a Conscience’ (1990) 56 Journal of the Chartered Institute of ArbitratorsGoogle Scholar

Gottwald, P. ‘Simplified Civil Procedure in West Germany’ (1983) 31 American Journal of Comparative Law687–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graham, K. ‘“There'll Always be an England”: The Instrumental Ideology of Evidence’ (1987) 85 Michigan Law Review1204–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grande, E. ‘Italian Criminal Justice: Borrowing and Resistance’ (2000) 48 American Journal of Comparative Law227–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grevling, K. ‘Restrictions on the Right to Silence – Introduction’, in Malek, H. (ed.), Phipson on Evidence (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005), pp. 1039–56Google Scholar

Gross, S. ‘Expert Evidence’ (1991) 6 Wisconsin Law Review1113–232Google Scholar

Haack, S. ‘The Benefit of Experience: Response to John Clendinnen’, in Waal, C. (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 88–91Google Scholar

Haack, S. ‘Crossing My i's and Dotting some t's: Response to Vern Warker’, in Waal, C. (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 105–8Google Scholar

Haack, S.Defending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism (New York: Prometheus Books, 2003)Google Scholar

Haack, S.Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)Google Scholar

Haack, S. ‘Innocent Realism in a Pluralistic Universe’, in Waal, C. (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 233–6Google Scholar

Haack, S. ‘Inquiry and Advocacy, Fallibilism and Finality: Culture and Inference in Science and Law’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk205–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haack, S. ‘Law, Literature, and Bosh’, in Waal, C. (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 259–62Google Scholar

Haack, S.Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)Google Scholar

Haack, S. ‘Of Chopin and Sycamores: Response to Ryszard Wójcicki’, in Waal, C. (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 69–72Google Scholar

Haack, S. ‘Reflections on Relativism: From Momentous Tautology to Seductive Contradiction’, in Haack, S., Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 149–66Google Scholar

Haack, S. ‘Trial and Error: The Supreme Court's Philosophy of Science’ (2005) 95 American Journal of Public HealthS66–S73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Habermas, J.Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997)Google Scholar

Hacking, I.The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975)Google Scholar

Hacking, I. ‘Experimentation and Scientific Realism’ (1982) 13 Philosophical Topics71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, J.The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty (1809) (Ann Arbor MI: Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints, 2004)Google Scholar

Hammelmann, H. ‘Expert Evidence’ (1947) 11 Modern Law Review32–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hammelmann, H. ‘Rules of Evidence Under the New Italian Civil Codes’ (1947) 29 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law39–46Google Scholar

Hand, L. ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review40–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, H.The Concept of Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar

Hart, H. ‘Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence’ (1954) 70 Law Quarterly Review37–60Google Scholar

Hart, H. and Honoré, T.Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harvey, N. and Harries, C. ‘Effects of Judges’ Forecasting on their Later Combination of Forecasts for the Same Outcome’ (2004) 20 International Journal of Forecasting391–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hastie, R.Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hastie, R., Schkade, D. and Payne, J. ‘A Study of Juror and Jury Judgments in Civil Cases: Deciding Liability for Punitive Damages’ (1998) 22 Law and Human Behaviour287–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Head, A. ‘The Role of an Expert Defined’ (1998) 9 Dispatcheswww.sew.org.uk/dispatch/role.htm (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Heerey, P. ‘Recent Australian Developments’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly386–95Google Scholar

Helmholz, R.Canon Law and the Law of England (London: Hambledon Press, 1987)Google Scholar

Helmholz, R.The Ius Commune in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar

Helmholz, R.The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. I: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hempel, C.Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: Free Press, 1965)Google Scholar

Hempel, C. ‘The Irrelevance of the Concept of Truth for the Critical Appraisal of Scientific Theories’, in Jeffrey, R. (ed.), Selected Philosophical Essays [by] Carl G. Hempel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 75–84Google Scholar

Ho, H. ‘The Epistemic Basis of Legal Fact-finding’ (2007) 1(2) Reasoner5–6 www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/jw/TheReasoner/vol1/TheReasoner-1(2). pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Ho, H.A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.) The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)

Hodgkinson, T. and James, M.Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007)Google Scholar

Hohfeld, W.Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied to Judicial Reasoning (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1923)Google Scholar

Holmes, A. ‘Moore's Appeal to Common Sense’ (1961) 58 Journal of Philosophy197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howard, M. ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review98–105Google Scholar

Howlin, N. ‘Special Juries: A Solution to the Expert Witness’ (2004) 12 Irish Student Law Review19–47Google Scholar

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

Hume, D.Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), ed. Nidditch, P., 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hume, D.A Treatise of Human Nature (1740), ed. Nidditch, P., 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978)Google Scholar

Hutter, M. and Teubner, G. ‘Homo juridicus and Homo oeconomicus: Communicate Fictions’, in Baums, T., Hopt, K. and Horn, N. (eds.), Corporations, Capital Markets and Business in the Law (The Hague: Kluwer, 2000), p. 569Google Scholar

Jackson, J. ‘Analysing the New Evidence Scholarship: Towards a New Conception of the Law of Evidence’ (1996) 16 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies309–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackson, J. ‘The Effect of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Convergence, Divergence or Realignment?’ (2005) 68 Modern Law Review737–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackson, J. ‘The Effect of Legal Culture and Proof in Decisions to Prosecute’ (2004) 3 Law Probability and Risk109–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackson, J. ‘Playing the Culture Card in Cross-Jurisdictional Transplants’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law51–67Google Scholar

Jackson, J. ‘The Ultimate Issue Rule: One Rule Too Many’ [1984] Criminal Law Review75Google Scholar

Jackson, J. and Doran, S. ‘Judge and Jury: Towards a New Division of Labour in Criminal Trials’ 60 Modern Law Review759–78CrossRef

Jackson, R. ‘The Incidence of Jury Trial during the Past Century’ (1937) 1 Modern Law Review132–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacob, J.Civil Justice in the Age of Human Rights (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007)Google Scholar

Jacob, J.The Fabric of English Civil Justice (London: Stevens, 1987)Google Scholar

Jacob, J. ‘Meetings of Experts Without Prejudice’ (1986) 5 Civil Justice Quarterly279–80Google Scholar

Jacob, R. ‘Court Appointed Experts v Party Experts: Which is Better?’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly400–7Google Scholar

Jacquin, A. ‘L'impartialité objective de l'expert judiciaire et sa récusation’ 31 Gazette du Palais (1 February 2003) 3–8Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S.Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. ‘What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science’ (1992) 32 Jurimetrics345–59Google Scholar

Jeuland, E. ‘Expertise’, in Cadiet, L. (ed.), Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), pp. 503–10Google Scholar

Johnston, P. ‘Court Appointed Scientific Expert Witnesses: Unfettering Expertise’ (1987) 2 Berkeley Technology Law Journalwww.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol2/johnston.pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Jolowicz, J. ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure’ (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly281–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jolowicz, J.On Civil Procedure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, C.Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine, and the Practice of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar

,Judicature Commission, First Report of the Commissioners (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1869)Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds.) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRef

Kalberg, S. ‘Max Weber's Types of Rationality’ (1980) 85 American Journal of Sociology1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kant, I.Critique of Practical Reason (1788), trans. Abbott, T. (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1898)Google Scholar

Kaplan, B., Mehren, A. and Schaefer, R. ‘Phases of German Civil Procedure I’ (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review1193–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keane, A. and Seabrooke, S. (eds.) Evidence, 6th edn (Oxford: Blackstone, 2001)

King, M. ‘An Autopoietic Approach to the Problems Presented by Parental Alienation Syndrome’ (2002) 13 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry609–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

King, M. and Kaganas, F. ‘The Risks and Dangers of Experts in Court’ (1998) 1 Current Legal Issues221–42Google Scholar

King, M. and Thornhill, C. ‘Will the Real Niklas Luhmann Stand Up, Please? A Reply to John Mingers’ (2003) 51 Sociological Review276–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitcher, P. ‘1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences’ (1984) 93 Philosophical Review335–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitcher, P.The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. ‘Implications of Incommensurability’ (1982) 2 Philosophy of Science Association689–703Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. ‘Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy’ (2001) 110 Philosophical Review151–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitcher, P. ‘Theories, Theorists and Theoretical Change’ (1978) 87 Philosophical Review519–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitcher, P. ‘Truth or Consequences?’ (1998) 72 Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kötz, H. ‘Civil Litigation and Public Interest’ (1982) 1 Civil Justice Quarterly237Google Scholar

Kuhn, T.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar

Kuhn, T.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970)Google Scholar

Lacey, N.A Life of H. L. A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar

Lakatos, I. ‘Science and Pseudoscience’ lecture, broadcast 30 June 1973 as Programme 11 of The Open University Arts Course A303, ‘Problems of Philosophy', www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscience.htm (last accessed 1 August 2008)

Landsman, S. ‘Of Witches, Madmen, and Products Liability: An Historical Survey of the Use of Expert Testimony’ (1995) 13 Behavioral Sciences and the Law131–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landsman, S. ‘One Hundred Years of Rectitude: Medical Witnesses at the Old Bailey, 1717–1817’ (1998) 16 Law and History Review445–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landsman, S. ‘The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England’ (1990) 75 Cornell Law Review497–609Google Scholar

Langbein, J. ‘Cultural Chauvinism in Comparative Law’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law41–50.Google Scholar

Langbein, J. ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review823–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langbein, J.The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar

Langbein, J. ‘Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review1–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langbein, J.Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langbein, J. ‘Trashing the German Advantage’ (1988) 82 Northwestern University Law Review763–84Google Scholar

Laudan, L. ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’ (1981) 48 Philosophy of Science19–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laudan, L.Truth, Error and Criminal Law – An Essay in Legal Epistemology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,Law Reform Committee England and Wales, Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence, 17th Report, Cmnd 4489 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1970)Google Scholar

Leclerc, O.Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l’étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005)Google Scholar

Leclerc, O. ‘Les réformes du droit de l'expertise’ (2006) 71 Experts12Google Scholar

Legrand, P. ‘European Legal Systems are not Converging’ (1996) 45 International and Comparative Law Quarterly52–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legrand, P. ‘The Impossibility of Legal Transplants’ (1997) 4 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law111–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leibniz, , G. Monadology (1714), trans. Latta, R. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898)Google Scholar

Lempert, R. ‘Civil Juries and Complex Cases: Let's Not Rush to Judgment’ (1981) 80 Michigan Law Review68–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lempert, R. ‘The New Evidence Scholarship: Analyzing the Process of Proof’ (1986) 66 Boston University Law Review439–77Google Scholar

Lennon, T. and Dea, S. ‘Continental Rationalism’, in Zalta, E. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2007 Edition) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2007/entries/continental-rationalism/ (last accessed 14 December 2007)Google Scholar

Leslie, J. ‘From Bear Garden to Swan Lake’ Counsel (August 2005) 22–3Google Scholar

Leucari, V. ‘Analysis of Complex Patterns of Evidence in Legal Cases: Wigmore Charts v Bayesian Networks’ (2005), www.evidencescience.org/content/leucariA1.pdf (last accessed 14 December 2007)

Levy, M. and Salvadori, M.Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail (New York: Norton, 1992)Google Scholar

Lobban, M. ‘The Strange Life of the English Civil Jury, 1837–1914’, in Cairns, J. and McLeod, G. (eds.), The Dearest Birthright of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 173–215Google Scholar

Locke, J.Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), ed. Yolton, J., 3rd edn (London: Dent, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Losee, J.Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar

Luhmann, N.Differentiation of Society, trans. Holmes, S. and Larmore, C. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)Google Scholar

Luhmann, N. ‘European Rationality’, in Robinson, G. and Rundell, J. (eds.), Rethinking Imagination: Culture and Creativity (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 65–83Google Scholar

Luhmann, N.Law as a Social System (1993), trans. Ziegert, K. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar

Luhmann, N.Social Systems (1984), trans. Bednarz Jr, J. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar

Lukes, S. ‘Relativism in its Place’, in Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds.), Rationality and Relativism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982), pp. 261–305Google Scholar

McAuley, F. ‘Canon Law and the End of the Ordeal’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies473–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McConnell, A. ‘Risk and Responsibility: Dealing with Science and Uncertainty in Toxic Torts’, Doctor of Laws thesis, European University Institute, 2000

McCormick, C.Handbook on the Law of Evidence (St Paul MN: West, 1954)Google Scholar

MacCormick, N.Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacCormick, N. ‘Norms, Institutions and Institutional Facts’ (1998) 17 Law and Philosophy301–45Google Scholar

Mackay, R. and Colman, A. ‘Equivocal Rulings on Expert Psychological and Psychiatric Evidence: Turning a Muddle into a Nonsense’ [1996] Criminal Law Review88–95Google Scholar

Macnair, M.The Law of Proof in Early Modern Equity (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1999)Google Scholar

McPherson, K. ‘One Expert's Experience’, in Blom-Cooper, L. (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 159–80Google Scholar

Macpherson, W.The New Procedure of the Civil Courts of British India, 5th edn (London: Lepage & Co., 1871)Google Scholar

Maddox, J., Randi, J. and Stewart, W. ‘“High-Dilution” Experiments a Delusion’ (1998) 334(6180) Nature287CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Magendie, J.-C., Célérité et qualité de la justice: la gestion du temps dans le proces. Rapport au Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice (Paris: La Documentation française, 2004)Google Scholar

Malek, H. (ed.) Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005)

Margot, P. ‘The Role of the Forensic Scientist in an Inquisitorial System of Justice’ (1998) 38 Science and Justice71–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marsden, G. (ed.) Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty (1547–1602), 2 vols., folios 6 and 11 (London: Selden Society, 1892 and 1897)

Martin de Agar, J. ‘Giudice e perito’, paper presented at the 29th Congresso Nazionale di Diritto Canonico, Vatican City, 1998

Matson, J.Effective Expert Witnessing, 3rd edn (Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1999)Google Scholar

Maturana, H. and Varela, F.Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meadow, R. (ed.) The ABC of Child Abuse, 3rd edn (London: BMJ Publishing, 1997)

Meininger, M.-C. (ed.) ‘L'administrateur et l'expert’ (2002) 103 Revue Française d'Administration Publique, 365–527

Menashe, D. and Shamash, M. ‘The Narrative Fallacy’ (2005) 3 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 1, art. 3, www.bepress.com/ice/vol3/iss1/art3 (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Menochius, J.Tractatus de praesumptionibus, conjecturis, signis et indiciis (Venice: 1590)

Merton, R.The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973)Google Scholar

Mill, J.System of Logic (London: 1843)Google Scholar

Millar, R. (ed.), A History of Continental Civil Procedure (London: J. Murray, 1928)

Miner, J. ‘The Jury Problem’ (1946) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology1–15Google Scholar

Mitnick, J. ‘From Neighbor-Witness to Judge of Proofs: The Transformation of the English Civil Juror’ (1988) 32 American Journal of Legal History201–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

‘,MMR Doctor “To Face GMC Charges”’ BBC News, 12 June 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5070670.stm (last accessed 1 August 2008)

‘MMR Scare Doctor “Paid Children”’, BBC News, 16 July 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6289166.stm (last accessed 1 August 2008)

Mnookin, J. ‘Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Expertise’ (2001) 87 Virginia Law Review1723–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mnookin, R. ‘Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy’ (1975) 39 Law and Contemporary Problems226–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mogck, D. ‘Are We There Yet? Refining the Test for Expert Testimony Through Daubert, Kumho Tire and Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 702’ (2000) 33 Connecticut Law Review303–36Google Scholar

Mohr, J.Doctors and the Law: Medical Jurisprudence in Nineteenth-Century America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar

Moore, G. ‘A Defence of Common Sense’, in Muirhead, J. (ed.), Contemporary British Philosophy, 2nd series (London: Allen and Unwin, 1924), pp. 191–223Google Scholar

Moss, S. ‘Opinion for Sale: Confessions of an Expert Witness’ (2003) Legal AffairsMarch/April 2003Google Scholar

Murphy, P.Evidence, 9th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google ScholarPubMed

Nelken, D. ‘A Just Measure of Science?’ in Freeman, M. and Reece, H. (eds.), Science in Court (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1988), pp. 11–36Google Scholar

Nelken, D. ‘Law and Disorder: A Letter from Italy’ (1992) 8 Socio-Legal Newsletter6Google Scholar

Nelken, D. ‘Law and Knowledge / Law as Knowledge’ (2006) 15 Social Legal Studies570–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nelken, D. ‘The Truth about Law's Truth’, in Febbrajo, A. and Nelken, D., European Yearbook in the Sociology of Law 1993 (Milan: Giuffrè, 1994), pp. 87–160Google Scholar

Nelken, D. and Feest, J. (eds.) Adapting Legal Cultures (Oxford: Hart, 2001)

Ngwasiri, C. ‘Some Problems of Expertise in French Civil Procedure’ (1989) 8 Civil Justice Quarterly168–83Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. and Ross, L.Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980)Google Scholar

Nörr, K. ‘Procedure in Mercantile Matters: Some Comparative Aspects’, in Piergiovanni, V. (ed.), The Courts and the Development of Commercial Law (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1987), pp. 195–201

O'Day, R.The Professions in Early Modern England 1450–1800 (Harlow: Longman, 2000)Google Scholar

O'Reilly, J. and Buenger, C.Toxic Torts Practice Guide, 2nd edn (Eagan MN: West, 2004)Google Scholar

Oberhammer, P. and Domej, T. ‘Germany, Switzerland and Austria (ca. 1800–2005)’, in Rhee, C. (ed.), European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), pp. 103–28Google Scholar

Oddie, C.Science and the Administration of Justice (London: Justice, 1991)Google Scholar

Odgers, W. ‘Changes in Procedure and the Law of Evidence’, in A Century of Law Reform (London: Macmillan, 1901), pp. 203–40Google Scholar

Oh, P. ‘The Proper Test for Assessing the Admissibility of Nonscientific Expert Testimony Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702’ (1997) 45 Cleveland State Law Review437–67Google Scholar

Oldham, J. ‘The History of the Special (Struck) Jury in the United States’ (1998) 6 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal623–75Google Scholar

Oldham, J. ‘Jury Research in the English Reports in CD-ROM’, in Cairns, J. and McLeod, G. (eds.), The Dearest Birthright of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 131–53Google Scholar

Oldham, J.The Mansfield Manuscripts and the Growth of English Law in the Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill NC: North Carolina University Press, 1992)Google Scholar

Oldham, J. ‘The Origins of the Special Jury’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review137–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palazzolo, G.Prova legale e pena: la crisi del sistema tra evo medio e moderno (Naples: Jovene, 1979)Google Scholar

Palmer, A.Proof and the Preparation of Trials (Sydney: Lawbook, 2003)Google Scholar

Paterson, J. ‘Trans-Science, Trans-Law and Proceduralisation’ (2003) 12 Social and Legal Studies523–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paterson, J. and Teubner, G. ‘Changing Maps: Empirical Legal Autopoiesis’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies451–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pattenden, R. ‘Litigation Privilege and Expert Opinion Evidence’ (2000) 4 Evidence and Proof213–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peysner, J. ‘Controlling Costs’ (2003) 153 (7090) New Law Journal1147–8Google Scholar

Phillips, S.A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, 2nd edn (London: Strahan, 1815)Google Scholar

Phipson, S.The Law of Evidence, 1st edn (London: Stevens, 1892)Google Scholar

Plous, S.The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (New York: McGraw Hill, 1993)Google Scholar

Popper, K.The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), trans. Popper, K. (London: Hutchinson, 1959)Google Scholar

Posner, R.Law and Legal Theory in England and America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar

Posner, R. ‘Practice and Potential of the Advisory Jury’ (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review1363–81Google Scholar

Precedent Book (c. 1575) Norfolk and Norwich Record Office PCD/2/3

Prichard, J. and Yale, D. (eds.), Hale and Fleetwood on Admiralty Jurisdiction, folio 108 (London: Selden Society, 1992)

Porter, R.England in the Eighteenth Century, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990)Google Scholar

Pundik, A. ‘Statistical Evidence: An Investigation of its Nature and its Usage in the Criminal Context’ (2006) Social Science Research Networkhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=878402 (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Quine, W. ‘On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World’ (1975) 9 Erkenntnis313–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rassat, M.-L. ‘Forensic Expertise and the Law of Evidence in France’, in Nijboer, J., Callen, C. and Kwak, N. (eds.), Forensic Expertise and the Law of Evidence (Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1993), pp. 53–62Google Scholar

Redmayne, M.Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reed, C. and Rowe, , , G. ‘Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation’ (2005) 19 Argumentation267–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Resnik, J. ‘Changing Practices, Changing Rules: Judicial and Congressional Rule Making on Civil Juries, Civil Justice and Civil Judging’ (1997) 49 Alabama Law Review133–219Google Scholar

Resnik, J. ‘Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III’ (2000) 113 Harvard Law Review924–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rheinstein, M. and Shils, E. (eds.) Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1954)

Roberts, P. ‘Rethinking the Law of Evidence: A Twenty-First Century Agenda for Teaching and Research’, in Roberts, P. and Redmayne, M., Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching (Oxford: Hart, 2007), pp. 19–63Google Scholar

Roberts, P. ‘Tyres with a “Y”: An English Perspective on Kumho Tire and its Implications for the Admissibility of Expert Evidence’ (1999) 1 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 2, art. 5, www.bepress.com/ice/vol1/iss2/art5 (last accessed 1 August 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A.Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar

Rock, P. ‘Witnesses and Space in a Crown Court’ (2001) 31 British Journal of Criminology266–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rodes, R. ‘The Canon Law as a Legal System – Function, Obligation, and Sanction’ (1964) 9 Natural Law Forum45–94Google Scholar

Rorty, R.Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970)Google Scholar

Roscoe, E.The High Court of Admiralty: The Last Phase (London: Kelly Law Book, 1927)Google Scholar

Rose, N. and Valverde, M. ‘Governed by Law?’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies541–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenthal, R. ‘Interpersonal Expectations: Effects of the Experimenter's Hypothesis’, in Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. (eds.), Artifact in Behavioral Research (New York: Academic Press, 1969), pp. 181–277Google Scholar

Rowe, G. and Reed, C. ‘Translating Wigmore Diagrams’, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006), pp. 171–82Google Scholar

,Royal Statistical Society ‘Royal Statistical Society Concerned by Issues Raised in Sally Clark Case’, 23 October 2001, www.rss.org.uk/PDF/RSS%20Statement%20regarding%20statistical%20issues%20in%20the%20Sally%20Clark%20 case,%20October%2023rd%202001.pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)

Rubin, A. ‘Trial by Jury in Complex Civil Cases: Voice of Liberty or Verdict of Confusion?’ (1982) 462 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruddock, A. ‘The Trinity House at Deptford in the Sixteenth Century’ (1950) 65 English Historical Review458–76Google Scholar

Russell, B.History of Western Philosophy, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 1961)Google Scholar

Sales, B. and Shuman, D.Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Samuels, A. ‘A Unified Civil Court’ (2006) 25 Civil Justice Quarterly250–60Google Scholar

Schiller, F. ‘Scientific Discovery and Logical Proof’, in Singer, C. (ed.), Studies in the History and Method of Science, vol. I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1917), pp. 235–89Google Scholar

Schlick, M. ‘Positivismus und Realismus’ (1932) 3 Erkenntnis1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmitt, F. (ed.) Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge (Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994)

Schum, D. ‘Evidence and Inference About Past Events: An Overview of Six Case Studies’, in Twining, W. and I. Hampsher-Monk, (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003), pp. 9–62Google Scholar

Schum, D.Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning (London: John Wiley, 1994)Google Scholar

Schum, D. ‘A Reply to the “Schum Challenge” at UCL’, 6 September 2005, www.evidence-science.org/content/D.%20Schum%20Reply.doc (last accessed 1 August 2008)

Sclater, S. and Piper, C. ‘Social Exclusion and the Welfare of the Child’ (2001) 28 Journal of Law and Society409–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scott, I. ‘Immunity from Suit of Expert Witnesses’ (1998) 17 Civil Justice Quarterly349–53Google Scholar

Searle, J.Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Senior, W.Doctors’ Commons and the Old Court of Admiralty (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1922)Google Scholar

Sériaux, A. ‘Pouvoir scientifique, savoir juridique’ (1991) 13 Droits61–6Google Scholar

Shapin, S.A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)Google Scholar

Shapiro, B.‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ and ‘Probable Cause’: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence (Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1991)Google Scholar

Shapiro, B.A Culture of Fact: England 1550–1720 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000)Google Scholar

Simpson, J. and Weiner, E. (eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)

Solomon, M. ‘Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning’ (1992) 59 Philosophy of Science439–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Solomon, M.Social Empiricism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2001)Google Scholar

Soothill, K. ‘Perjury and False Statements: A Criminal Profile of Persons Convicted 1979– 2001’ [2004] Criminal Law Review926–35.Google Scholar

Spencer, B. ‘Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts’ (2007) 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies305–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, J. ‘Court Experts and Expert Witnesses: Have We a Lesson to Learn from the French?’ (1992) 45 Current Legal Problems213–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, J. ‘Inscrutable Verdicts, the Duty to Give Reasons and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2001) 1 Archbold News5–8Google Scholar

Spencer, J. ‘The Neutral Expert: An Implausible Bogey’ [1991] Criminal Law Review106–10Google Scholar

Spencer, J. and Flin, J.The Evidence of Children – The Law and the Psychology, 2nd edn (London: Blackstone, 1993)Google Scholar

Spinoza, B.Ethics (1677), trans. Boyle, A., ed. Parkinson, G. (London: Dent, 1993)Google Scholar

Squibb, G.Doctors’ Commons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977)Google Scholar

Starkie, T.A Practical Treatise on the Law of Evidence and Digest of Proofs in Civil and Criminal Proceedings (London: Clarke, 1824)Google Scholar

Steckley, G. ‘Collisions, Prohibitions, and the Admiralty Court in Seventeenth-Century London’ (2003) 21 Law and History Review41–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steckley, G. ‘Merchants and the Admiralty Court During the English Revolution’ (1978) 22 American Journal of Legal History137–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stein, A.Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stein, A.Stephen, J.A General View of the Criminal Law of England (London: McMillan, 1863)Google Scholar

Stein, A.The Principles of Judicial Evidence, Being an Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872) (Calcutta: Thacker Spink & Co., 1872)Google Scholar

Steup, M. ‘Epistemology’, in Zalta, E. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2006/entries/epistemology/ (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Stich, S. ‘Could Man be an Irrational Animal?’ (1985) 64 Synthèse115–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strier, F. ‘The Educated Jury: A Proposal for Complex Litigation’ (1997) 47 DePaul Law Review49–83Google Scholar

Sunderland, E. ‘The Inefficiency of the American Jury’ (1915) 13 Michigan Law Review302–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sward, E.The Decline of the Civil Jury (Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2001)Google Scholar

Taleb, N.The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (London: Penguin, 2007)Google Scholar

Tapper, C.Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar

Taruffo, M.La prova dei fatti giuridici (Milan: Giuffrè, 1992)Google Scholar

Taruffo, M. ‘Senso comune, esperienza e scienza nel ragionamento del giudice’, in Sui confini: scritti sulla giustizia civile (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2002), pp. 121–55Google Scholar

Taylor, J.A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (London: Maxwell and Sweet, 1848)Google Scholar

Teubner, G. ‘Altera pars audiatur: Law in a Collision of Discourses’, in Rawlings, R. (ed.), Law, Society and Economy: Centenary Essays for the London School of Economics and Political Science 1895–1995 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 149–76Google Scholar

Teubner, G. ‘How the Law Thinks: Toward A Constructivist Epistemology of Law’ (1989) 23 Law and Society Review727–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Teubner, G.Law as an Autopoietic System (Blackwell: Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar

Teubner, G. (ed) Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988)

Thayer, J.A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1898)Google Scholar

Thayer, J.Select Cases on Evidence at the Common Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge MA: Charles W. Fever, 1900)Google Scholar

Tillers, P. ‘The Authority of History for the Modern Law of Proof and Evidence’ Blog Tillers on Evidence and Inference, 4 November 2003 http://tillerstillers.blogspot.com/2003/11/authority-of-history-for-modern-law-of.htm (last accessed 1 August 2008)

Tillers, P. ‘Prejudice, Politics and Proof’ (1988) 86 Michigan Law Review768–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Timmerbeil, S. ‘The Role of Expert Witnesses in German and US Civil Litigation’ (2003) 9 Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law163–87Google Scholar

Toulmin, S.The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958)Google Scholar

Tufte, E.Beautiful Evidence (Cheshire CT: Graphics Press, 2006)Google Scholar

Turner, R. ‘A New Approach to Civil Litigation’, paper given at the Royal Courts of Justice, 24 June 2002

Twining, W. ‘Alternative to What? Theories of Litigation, Procedure and Dispute Settlement in Anglo-American Jurisprudence: Some Neglected Classics’ (1993) 56 Modern Law Review380–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W. ‘Argumentation, Stories and Generalizations: A Comment’ (2007) 6 Law Probability and Risk169–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W. ‘Civilians Don't Try: A Comment on Mirjan Damaška's “Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited”’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law69–78Google Scholar

Twining, W. ‘Evidence and Legal Theory’ (1984) 47 Modern Law Review261–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W. ‘Freedom of Proof and the Reform of Criminal Evidence’ (1997) 31 Israel Law Review439–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W. ‘Hot Air in the Redwoods, A Sequel to the Wind in the Willows’ (1988) 86 Michigan Law Review1523–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W.Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973)Google Scholar

Twining, W. ‘Narrative and Generalizations in Argumentation about Questions of Fact’ (1999) 40 South Texas Law Review351–65Google Scholar

Twining, W. ‘The Ratio decidendi of the Parable of the Prodigal Son’, in O'Donovan, K. and Rubin, G. (eds.), Human Rights and Legal History: Essays in Honour of Brian Simpson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 149–71Google Scholar

Twining, W. ‘The Rationalist Tradition of Evidence Scholarship’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 35–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W.Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W. ‘Social Science and Diffusion of Law’ (2005) 32 Journal of Law and Society203–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W. ‘Some Scepticism About Some Scepticisms’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 99–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W. ‘Taking Facts Seriously’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 14–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, W.Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985)Google Scholar

Twining, W. and Hampsher-Monk, I. (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003)

Twining, W. and Twining, P. ‘Bentham on Torture’ (1973) 24 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly305–56Google Scholar

Ubertis, G.Argomenti di procedura penale (Milan: Giuffrè, 2002)Google Scholar

Cleve, G. ‘Somerset's Case and its Antecedents in Imperial Perspective’ (2006) 24 Law and History Review601–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kampen, P. Expert Evidence Compared: Rules and Practices in the Dutch and American Criminal Justice System (Antwerp: Intersentia Rechtswetenschappen, 1998)Google Scholar

Krieken, R. ‘The “Best Interests of the Child" and Parental Separation: On the “Civilizing of Parents”’ (2005) 68 Modern Law Review25–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Venn, J.Principles of Inductive Logic, 2nd edn (New York: Chelsea Publishing, 1907)Google Scholar

Vidmar, N. and Schuller, R. ‘Juries and Expert Evidence: Social Framework Testimony’ (1989) 52 Law and Contemporary Problems133–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walker, V. ‘It's Time to Cross the t's and Dot the i's’, in Waal, C. (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 92–104Google Scholar

Waller, Lord Justice (Sir Mark), Scott, I., Brooke, Sir H.et al. (eds.) Civil Procedure, 2 vols. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007) (The White Book)

Walton, D.Legal Argumentation and Evidence (University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002)Google Scholar

Walton, D. ‘Rules for Reasoning from Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge’ (2006) 34 Philosophia355–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ward, T. ‘Experts, Juries and Witch-Hunts: From Fitzjames Stephen to Angela Cannings’ (2004) 31 Journal of Law and Society369–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ward, T. ‘Observers, Advisers, or Authorities? Experts, Juries and Criminal Responsibility in Historical Perspective’ (2001) 12 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry105–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watson, A.Legal Transplants, 2nd edn (Athens GA: Georgia University Press, 1993)Google Scholar

Watson, A. ‘Legal Transplants and European Private Law’ (2000) 4 Electronic Journal of Comparative Lawwww.ejcl.org/44/art44-2.html (last accessed 1 August 2008)Google Scholar

Watson, J.The Double Helix (New York: Norton, 1967)Google Scholar

Weber, M.Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922)Google Scholar

Weinstein, J. and Hershenov, E. ‘The Effect of Equity on Mass Tort Law’ [1991] University of Illinois Law Review269–327Google Scholar

Wigmore, J.The Science of Judicial Proof: As Given by Logic, Psychology and General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 3rd edn (Boston: Little, Brown, 1937)Google Scholar

Wigmore, J.A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Chadbourn (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981)Google Scholar

Wigmore, J.A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Tiller (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983)Google Scholar

Williams, B. ‘Ethics’, in Grayling, A. (ed.), Philosophy: A Guide Through the Subject, 2nd edn, vol. I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 545–83Google Scholar

Williamson, T.Knowledge and its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar

Wills, W.An Essay on the Principles of Circumstantial Evidence (London: 1838)Google Scholar

Winch, P.The Idea of a Social Science (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958).Google Scholar

Winch, P. ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’ (1964) 1(14) American Philosophical Quarterly307–24Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L.Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1953).Google Scholar

Woolf, LordAccess to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996)Google Scholar

Woolf, LordAccess to Justice: Interim Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1995)Google Scholar

Woolf, Lord ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?’ (2001) 9 Medical Law Review1–16Google ScholarPubMed

Woolf, Lord, Jowell, J. and Sueur, A. (eds.), De Smith, Woolf and Jowell's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1995)Google Scholar

Wright, R. ‘Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof: Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifying the Concepts’ (1988) 73 Iowa Law Review1001–77Google Scholar

Wright, R. ‘Once More into the Bramble Bush: Duty, Causal Contribution and the extent of Legal Responsibility’ (2001) 54 Vanderbilt Law Review1071–132Google Scholar

Yale, D. (ed.) Lord Nottingham's Chancery Cases, 2 vols., folios 73 and 79 (London: Selden Society, 1954 and 1961)

Yates, C. ‘Doctoring the Evidence: Medical Evidence in Child Custody Cases in Australia’ (1986) 5 Civil Justice Quarterly144Google Scholar

Zahle, H. ‘Twining, William and Hampsher-Monk, Iain (eds.) Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary DialoguesIllinois: Northwestern UP (2003)’ (2004) 8 Evidence and Proof211–13Google Scholar

Zeisel, H. and Diamond, S. ‘“Convincing Empirical Evidence” on the Six Member Jury’ (1974) 41 University of Chicago Law Review281–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ziegert, K. ‘The Thick Description of Law: An Introduction to Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Operatively Closed Systems’, in Banakar, R. and Travers, M. (eds.), An Introduction to Law and Social Theory (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 55–75Google Scholar

Zuckerman, A.Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006)Google Scholar

Zuckerman, A. ‘Coercion and the Judicial Ascertainment of Truth’ (1989) 23 Israel Law Review357–74Google Scholar

Zuckerman, A. ‘Disclosure of Expert Reports’ (2005) 24 Civil Justice Quarterly293–7Google Scholar

Zuckerman, A. ‘Miscarriage of Justice – A Root Treatment’ [1992] Criminal Law Review323–45Google Scholar