·  **  D. Schlueter, S. Saltzburg, L. Schinasi & E. Imwinkelried, Military Evidentiary Foundations (LexisNexis 4th ed. 2010).

Imwinkelried, “Dealing With Supposed Jury Preconceptions About the Significance of the Lack of Evidence: The Difference Between the Perspective of the Policymaker and That of the Advocate,” in “CSI Effect” Symposium Issue, 27 Thomas M. Cooley Law Review 37 (2010).

Imwinkelried, “Professor Margaret Berger, the Epitome of the Fully Engaged Scholar and Friend of the Court,” 75 Brooklyn Law Review 1153 (2010).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried & T. Hallahan, California Trial Objections (West 2d ed. 2010).

·  **  R. Carlson & E. Imwinkelried, The Dynamics of Trial Practice: Problems and

Materials (Thomson West 4th ed. 2010).
Imwinkelried, “A Crash Course in Rule 502,” 46 Trial 38 (July 2010). Imwinkelried, “The Second Coming of Res Gestae: A Procedural Approach to

Untangling the ‘Inextricably Intertwined’ Theory for Admitting Evidence of an Accused’s Uncharged Misconduct,” 59 Catholic University Law Review 719 (2010).

Imwinkelried, “Shaken Baby Syndrome: A Genuine Battle of the Scientific (and Non-Scientific) Experts,” 46 Criminal Law Bulletin 156 (2010).

Imwinkelried, “The Implied Obligation of Good Faith in Contract Law: Is It Time to Write Its Obituary?,” 42 Texas Tech Law Review 1 (2009).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, The New Wigmore: Evidentiary Privileges (Wolters Kluwer 2d ed. 2009)(2 vols.).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried & T. Leach, California Evidentiary Foundations (LexisNexis 4th ed. 2009).

Cherry & Imwinkelried, “A New Law to Fix the Cyber Security Problem,” 56 Garden State Focus 16 (Sep.-Oct. 2009).

Cherry & Imwinkelried, “The Causation Issue in Computer Security Breach Cases,” 93 Judicature 75 (Sep.-Oct. 2009).

Gopen & Imwinkelried, “Bloodstain Pattern Evidence Revisited,” 45 Criminal Law Bulletin 3 (2009).

Imwinkelried, “Poetic Justice in Punishing the Evidentiary Misdeed of Knowingly Proffering Inadmissible Evidence,” 7 International Commentary on Evidence, Issue 1, Article 6 (2009).

Imwinkelried, “The Need to Resurrect the Present Sense Impression Hearsay Exception: A Relapse in Hearsay Policy,” 52 Howard Law Journal 319 (2009).

Imwinkelried, “‘This Is Like Deja Vu All Over Again’: The Third, Constitutional Attack on the Admissibility of Police Laboratory Reports in Criminal Cases,” 38 New Mexico Law Review 303 (2008).

Cherry & Imwinkelried, “Questions About the Accuracy of Fingerprint Evidence, 92 Judicature 158 (Jan.-Feb. 2009).

Imwinkelried, “Rethinking the Limits of the Interpretive Maxim of Constitutional Avoidance: The Case Study of the Corroboration Requirement for Inculpatory Declarations Against Penal Interest (Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3)),
44 Gonzaga Law Review 187 (2008/09).

Imwinkelried, “Expert Testimony by Ethicists: What Should be the Norm?,” 33 The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 198 (2005).

·  **  Edward Imwinkelried, “Daubert and Beyond,” in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FORENSIC AND LEGAL MEDICINE 294 (2005).

Gilligan & Imwinkelried, “Waiver Raised to the Second Power: Waivers of Evidentiary Privileges by Lawyers Representing Accused Being Tried in Absentia,” 56 South Carolina Law Review 509 (2005).

Imwinkelried, “A Psychological Critique of the Assumptions Underlying the Law of Evidentiary Privileges: Insights from the Literature on Self-Disclosure,” 38 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 707 (2004).

·  **  D. Schlueter, J. Onion, C. Barrow & E. Imwinkelried, Texas Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 3d ed. 2004).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Plant and Water Analysis,” 41 Criminal Law Bulletin 75 (Jan.-Feb. 2005).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried & N. Garland, Exculpatory Evidence: The Accused’s Constitutional Right to Introduce Favorable Evidence (LEXIS Law Pub. 3d ed. 2004).

Imwinkelried, “The Need to Integrate Legisprudence into the Evidence Course,” in Teaching the Law School Curriculum 194 (Carolina Academic Press 2004).

·  **  Imwinkelried, “The Relative Priority that Should Be Assigned to Trial Stage DNA

Issues,” in DNA and the Criminal Justice System (D. Lazer, ed. 2004).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, The Methods of Attacking Scientific Evidence (LEXIS Law Pub. 4th

ed. 2004).
Imwinkelried, “‘Junk Science’ in the Courtroom: Will the Changes in the American

Law of Expert Testimony Influence the Irish Courts?,” 26 Dublin University Law

Journal 83 (2004).
Imwinkelried, “The Admissibility and Legal Sufficiency of Testimony About

Differential Diagnosis (Etiology): Of Under- and Over-Estimations,” 56

Baylor Law Review 391 (2004).
Imwinkelried & Schlueter, “Evidentiary Tactics: Selecting the ‘Best’ Evidence to

Simplify the Case,” 19 Criminal Justice 20 (Summer 2004). Imwinkelried, “Questioning the Behavioral Assumption Underlying Wigmorean

Absolutism in the Law of Evidentiary Privileges,” 65 University of Pittsburgh

Law Review 145 (2004).
E. Imwinkelried & T. Blumoff, Pretrial Discovery: Strategy and Tactics (Thomson West

rev.ed. 2004).
Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Glass Evidence,” 39 Criminal Law Bulletin

608 (Sep.-Oct. 2003).
Imwinkelried & Tobin, “Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA) Evidence:

Valid Inference or Ipse Dixit?”, 28 Oklahoma City Law Review 43 (2003). Imwinkelried, “Using the Evidence Course as a Vehicle for Teaching Legisprudential

Skills,” 21 Quinnipiac Law Review 907 (2003).
Imwinkelried, “The Relativity of Reliability,” 34 Seton Hall Law Review 269 (2003).

Imwinkelried, “The Meaning of ‘Appropriate Validation’ in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Interpreted in Light of the Broader Rationalist

Tradition, Not the Narrow Scientific Tradition,” 30 Florida State

University Law Review 735 (2003).
Imwinkelried, “Expert Testimony by Ethicists: What Should Be the Norm?,” 76

Temple Law Review 91 (2003).
Imwinkelried, “THE NEW WIGMORE: An Essay on Rethinking the Foundation of

Evidentiary Privileges,” 83 Boston University Law Review 315 (2003). Imwinkelried,“TheDubietyofSocialEngineeringThroughEvidence: AReplyto

Professor Sanchirico’s Recent Article on Character Evidence,” 51 Drake Law

Review 283 (2003).
Imwinkelried, “Peer Dialogue: The How and What of ‘Appropriate Validation’ Under

Daubert: Reconsidering the Treatment of Einstein and Freud,” 68 Missouri Law

Review 43 (2003).
Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Opinions by Forensic Pathologists as to the Cause of

Death,” 38 Criminal Law Bulletin 87 (Jan.-Feb. 2003).
Imwinkelried, “Flawed Expert Testimony: Striking the Right Balance in Admissibility

Standards,” 18 Criminal Justice 28 (Spr. 2003).
Imwinkelried, “The Reach of Winship: Invalidating Evidentiary Admissibility Standards

That Undermine the Prosecution’s Obligation to Prove the Defendant’s Guilt

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt,” 70 U.M.K.C.L. Rev. 865 (2002).

·  **  R. Carlson & E. Imwinkelried, Dynamics of Trial Practice: Problems and Materials

(Thompson-West 3d ed. 2002).
Imwinkelried, “A Defense of the Right to Present Defense Expert Testimony: The Flaws

in the Plurality Opinion in United States v. Scheffer.”69 Tennessee Law Review

539 (2002).
Imwinkelried, “The Historical Cycle in the Law of Evidentiary Privileges: Will

Instrumentalism Come into Conflict with the Modern Humanistic Theories?” 55

Arkansas Law Review. 241 (2002).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations. (LEXIS Law Pub. 5th ed. 2002).

·  **  Giannelli & Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence, in 4 Encyclopedia of Crime &Justice (2d ed. 2002).

·  **  R. Carlson, E. Imwinkelried, E. Kionka & K. Strachan, Evidence: Teaching Materials for an Age of Science and Statutes (LEXIS Law Pub. 5th ed. 2002).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, The New Wigmore:A Treatise on Evidence: Evidentiary Privileges (Aspen Law & Business 2002) (2 vols).

·  **  L. Schinasi, M. Graham & E. Imwinkelried, Florida Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 3d ed. 2001).

Imwinkelried, “A Minimalist Approach to the Presentation of Expert Testimony,” 31 Stetson Law Review 105 (2001).

Imwinkelried, “Can We Rely on the Alleged Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy to Secure Genetic Privacy in the Courtroom?” 31 Seton Hall Law Review 926 (2001).

Kaye, Smith & Imwinkelried, “Is a DNA Identification Database in Your Future,” 16 Criminal Justice 4 (Fall 2001).

Saltzburg, Imwinkelried & Capra, “Keeping the Reformist Spirit Alive in Evidence Law.” 149 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1277 (2001).

·  **  M. Bright, R. Carlson & E. Imwinkelried, Objections at Trial (LEXIS Law Pub. Co. 4th ed. 2001).

Imwinkelried & Kaye, “DNA Typing: Emerging or Neglected Issues,” 76 Washington Law Review 413 (2001).

Gilligan & Imwinkelried, “Bringing the 'Opening the Door’” Theory to a Close: The Tendency to Overlook the Specific Contradiction Doctrine in Evidence Law,” 41 Santa Clara Law Review 807 (2001).

Imwinkelried, “Logerquist v. McVey: The Majority’s Flawed Procedural Assumptions.” 33 Arizona State Law Journal 121 (2001).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Explosives,” 37 Criminal Law Bulletin 80 (Jan.-Feb. 2001).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Bloodspatter Analysis,” 36 Criminal Law Bulletin 509 (Nov.-Dec. 2000).

Imwinkelried, “The Paradox of Privilege Law,” in 2 New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence 339 (Intersentia 2000).

·  **  W. Fortune, R. Underwood & E. Imwinkelried, Modern Litigation and Professional Responsibility Handbook: The Limits of Zealous Advocacy (2d ed. 2000).

Imwinkelried, “The Judge as Daubert Gatekeeper: Adapting Old Maps to the Unfamiliar Terrain of the Brave New World, in Proceedings of the National Conference on Science and the Law” 51 (2000).

·  **  J. O’Brien, J. Hamilton, E. Buckley & E. Imwinkelried, Missouri Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Publishing 2d ed. 2000).

Imwinkelried, “Trial Judges - Gatekeepers or Usurpers? Can the Trial Judge Critically Assess the Admissibility of Expert Testimony Without Invading the Jury’s Province to Evaluate the Credibility and Weight of the Testimony?” 84 Marquette Law Review 1 (2000).

Imwinkelried, “The Taxonomy of Testimony Post-Kumho: Refocusing on the Bottomlines of Reliability and Necessity,” 30 Cumberland Law Review 185 (2000).

Imwinkelried, “Prejudice to the Nth Degree: The Introduction of Uncharged Misconduct Admissible Only Against a Co-defendant at a Megatrial,” 53 Oklahoma Law Review 35 (2000).

·  **  D. Schlueter, S. Saltzburg, Schinasi & E. Imwinkelried, Military Evidentiary Foundations

(LEXIS Law Pub. Co. 2d ed. 2000).
Myers, Redlich, Goodman, Prizmich & Imwinkelried, “Jurors Perceptions of

Hearsay in Child Sexual Abuse Cases,” 5 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 388 (1999).

Imwinkelried, “Evaluating the Reliability of Nonscientific Expert Testimony: A Partial Answer to the Questions Left Unresolved by Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,” 52 Maine Law Review 20 (2000).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, R. Wydick & J. Hogan, California Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 3d ed. 2000).

Giannelli & Imwinkelried, “Scientific Evidence: The Fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Kumho Tire,” 14 Criminal Justice 12 (Wint. 2000).

·  **  S. Saltzburg & E. Imwinkelried, California and Federal Evidence Trial Book (LEXIS Law Pub. Co. 1999).

·  **  D. H. Kaye & E. Imwinkelried, “Forensic DNA Typing: Selected Legal Issues (Nat’l. Comm’n. On the Future of DNA Evidence 2000).

P. Giannelli & Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Handwriting Comparison,” 35 Criminal Law Bulletin 517(Sep.-Oct. 1999).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Paint Evidence,” 35 Criminal Law Bulletin 305 (May- June 1999).

Imwinkelried, “The Escape Hatches from Frye and Daubert: Sometimes You Don’t Need to Lay Either Foundation in Order to Introduce Expert Testimony,” 23 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 1 (1999).

Imwinkelried, “Should the Courts Incorporate a Best Evidence Rule into the Standard Determining the Admissibility of Scientific Testimony?: Enough Is Enough Even When It Is Not the Best,” 50 Case Western Reserve Law Review 19 (1999).

·  **  P. Giannelli & E. Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence (LEXIS Law Pub. 3d ed. 1999) (2 vols.).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried & T. Blumoff, Pretrial Discovery: Strategy and Tactics (West Group rev. ed. 1999).

·  **  J. Strong, K. Broun, G. Dix, E. Imwinkelried, D. Kaye, R. Mosteller & E. Roberts, McCormick on Evidence (West Group 5th ed. 1999) (2 vols.).

Imwinkelried & McCall, “Minnesota v. Philip Morris, Inc.: An Important Legal Ethics Message Which Neglects the Public Interest in Product Safety Research,” 87 Kentucky Law Journal 1127 (1998-99).

Imwinkelried, “Whether the Federal Rules of Evidence Should Be Conceived as a Perpetual Index Code: Blindness Is Worse Than Myopia,” 40 William & Mary Law Review 1595 (1999).

·  **  T. Butts, C. Gamble & E. Imwinkelried, Alabama Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 1999).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Extrapolation Testimony in Drunk Driving Prosecutions,” 34 Criminal Law Bulletin 536 (Nov.-Dec. 1998).

Imwinkelried, “The Rivalry Between Truth and Privilege: The Weakness of the Supreme Court’s Instrumental Reasoning in Jaffee v. Redmond,” 518 U.S. 1 (1996), 49 Hastings Law Journal 969 (1998).

·  **  Imwinkelried and Hallahan’s California Evidence Code Annotated 1999 (West Group).

·  **  K. Sinclair, J. Kearfott, P. Sheridan & E. Imwinkelried, Virginia Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 1998).

·  **  D. Schlueter, J. Onion, C. Barrow & E. Imwinkelried, Texas Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 2d ed. 1998).·  

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, P. Giannelli, F. Gilligan & F. Lederer, Courtroom Criminal Evidence (LEXIS Law Pub. 3d ed. 1998)(2 vols.)

·  **  M. Bright, R. Carlson & E. Imwinkelried, Objections at Trial (LEXIS Law Pub. 3d. ed. 1998).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence (West Group Rev. ed. 1998) (2 vol.). Imwinkelried,“TheBlockbusterAdamsDecision,” 34Trial26(Oct.1998). Imwinkelried, “Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire: Should the Judge or the Jury

Decide the Question of Whether the Accused Committed an Alleged Uncharged Crime Proffered Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404?,” 42 St. Louis University Law Journal 813 (1998).

Gilligan & Imwinkelried, “Cyberspace: The Newest Challenge for Traditional Legal Doctrine,” 24 Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 305 (1998).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 4th ed. 1998).

·  **  R. Mosteller, D. Beskind, T. Ross & E. Imwinkelried, North Carolina Evidentiary

Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 1998).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, “Article V. Privileges,” in Emerging Problems Under the Federal

Rules of Evidence (3d ed. 1998).

·  **  R. Jonakait, H. Baer, E. Jones & E. Imwinkelried, New York Evidentary Foundations

(LEXIS Law Pub. 2d ed. 1998).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 4th ed. 1998).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: A Primer on the Admissibility of Accident Reconstruction Testimony,” 33 Criminal Law Bulletin 172 (Mar.-Apr. 1997). Imwinkelried, “Foreword, Symposium: International Perspectives on Scientific Evidence,” 30 U.C. Davis Law Review 941 (1997).

Amann & Imwinkelried, “The Supreme Court’s Decision to Recognize a Psychotherapist Privilege in Jaffee v. Redmond, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996): The Meaning of ‘Experience’ and the Role of ‘Reason’ Under Federal Rule of Evidence 501,” 65 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1019 (1997).

Imwinkelried & McCall, “Issues Once Moot: The Other Evidentiary Objections to the Admissibility of Exculpatory Polygraph Examinations,” 32 Wake Forest L.Rev. 1045 (1997).

·  **  Editorial Board, Jefferson’s California Evidence Benchbook Chs. 35-38, 40 (3d ed. 1997 California Continuing Education of the Bar).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried & D. Blinka, Criminal Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 1997).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, The Methods of Attacking Scientific Evidence (Michie Publishing Co., 3d ed. 1997).

Imwinkelried, “Evidentiary Heresy: Disregarding the Rules of Evidence at Trial!,” 41 Trial Lawyer’s Guide 40(1997).

Imwinkelried, "The Next Step in Conceptualizing the Presentation of Expert Evidence as Education: The Case for Didactic Trial Procedures," 1 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 128 (1997).

·  **  Edward Imwinkelried & David Schlueter, Federal Evidence Tactics (Matthew Bender 1997).

Imwinkelried, "A New Threat to Plaintiff's Discovery Rights?," 33 Trial 36 (Sep. 1997).

·  **  Ronald L. Carlson, Edward J. Imwinkelried, Edward J. Kionka & Kristine Strachan,

Evidence: Teaching Materials for an Age of Science and Statutes (Michie

Publishing Co. 4th ed. 1997).

·  **  Roxanne Bailin, James M. England, H. Patrick Furman & Edward J. Imwinkelried,

Colorado Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 1997).

·  **  Michael H. Graham, Robert J. Steigmann, William R. Brandt & Edward J.

Imwinkelried, Illinois Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 2d ed.

1997).
Imwinkelried, "Judicial Remedies for the Exposure of the Jury to 'Irrelevant' Evidence,"

34 Houston Law Review 73 (1997).

·  **  Michael H. Graham, Phillip A. Hubbart, Daniel S. Pearson & Edward J. Imwinkelried,

Florida Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 2d ed. 1997). Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: The Constitutional Right to Surmount Exclusionary

Rules Barring the Introduction of Exculpatory Scientific Evidence,” 32 Criminal

Law Bulletin 255 (May-June 1996).
Gilligan, Imwinkelried & Loftus, "The Theory of 'Unconscious Transference':

The Latest Threat to the Shield Laws Protecting the Privacy of Victims

of Sex Offenses," 38 Boston College Law Review 107 (1996). Imwinkelried, "Moving Beyond 'Top Down' Grand Theories of Statutory

Construction: A 'Bottom Up' Interpretive Approach to the Federal Rules of

Evidence," 75 Oregon Law Review 389 (1996).
Imwinkelried, "The Case Against Evidentiary Admissibility Standards That Attempt to

'Freeze' the State of a Scientific Technique," 67 University of Colorado Law

Review 887 (1996).
Imwinkelried, "Frye's General Acceptance Test vs. Daubert's Empirical Validation

Standard--'Either. . . Or' or 'Both . . . And'?" 33 Criminal Law Bulletin 72

(Jan.-Feb. 1997).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried & N. Garland, Exculpatory Evidence: The Accused's Constitutional

Right to Introduce Favorable Evidence (Michie Publishing Co. 2d ed. 1996). Imwinkelried, "Declarations Against Social Interest: The (Still) Embarrassingly

Neglected Hearsay Exception," 69 Southern California Law Review 1427

(1996).
Imwinkelried, "Admissibility of Nonscientific Expert Testimony," 32 Trial 58 (Oct.

1996).

·  **  W. Fortune, R. Underwood & E. Imwinkelried, Modern Litigation and Professional

Responsibility Handbook (Little, Brown & Co. 1996).

Imwinkelried, "Developing a Coherent Theory of the Structure of Federal Rule of Evidence 703," 47 Mercer Law Review 447 (1996).

Imwinkelried, "Foreword," in Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial xii (U.S. Dept.Just. 1996).

·  **  R. Park, B. Poritsky, M. Costello & E. Imwinkelried, Minnesota Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 1996).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Qualifying A Witness as an Expert: Evidentiary Mini- Issues,” 31 Criminal Law Bulletin 250 (Jul.-Aug. 1995).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Federal Rule of Evidence 703: A Minefield for the Criminal Litigator,” 31 Criminal Law Bulletin 259 (May-June 1995).

Imwinkelried, "Evidence Law Visits Jurassic Park: The Far-Reaching Implications of the Daubert Court's Recognition of the Uncertainty of the Scientific Enterprise," 71 Iowa Law Review 55 (1995).

Denove&Imwinkelried,"JurySelection: AnEmpiricalInvestigationof Demographic Bias," 19 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 285 (1995).

·  **  Imwinkelried & G. Weissenberger, An Evidence Anthology (Anderson Publishing Co. 1996).

Imwinkelried, "Criminal Evidence Strategies in Civil Cases," 22 Litigation 34 (Fall 1995).

Imwinkelried, "Using a Contextual Construction to Resolve the Dispute over the Meaning of the Term 'Plan' in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), "43 University of Kansas Law Review 1005 (1995).

·  **  R. Carlson & E. Imwinkelried, Dynamics of Trial Practice (West Publishing Co., 2d ed., 1995).

Imwinkelried, "The Meaning of `Facts or Data' in Federal Rule of Evidence 703:
The Significance of the Supreme Court's Decision to Rely on Federal Rule 702 in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Chemical Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," 54 Maryland Law Review 352 (1995).

Imwinkelried, "Expert Testimony in the US -- A Different Perspective," 145 New Law Journal 644 (May 5, 1995).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Scanning Electron Microscopy,” 30 Criminal Law Bulletin 556 (Nov.-Dec. 1994).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Toxicological Procedures to Identify Poisons,” 30 Criminal Law Bulletin 172 (Mar.-Apr. 1994).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Time of Death Determinations,” 30 Criminal Law Bulletin, 76 (Jan.-Feb. 1994).

Imwinkelried, "Some Comments About Mr. David Karp's Remarks on Propensity Evidence," 70 Chicago-Kent Law Review 37 (1994).

·  **  M. Denbeaux, J. Arseneault & E. Imwinkelried, New Jersey Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 1995).

Imwinkelried, "Undertaking the Task of Reforming the American Character Evidence Prohibition: The Importance of Getting the Experiment Off on the Right Foot," 22 Fordham Urban Law Journal 285 (1995).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 3d ed. 1995).

Imwinkelried & Mendez, "People v. Ewoldt: The California Supreme Court's About- Face on the Plan Theory for Admitting Evidence of an Accused's Uncharged Misconduct," 28 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 473 (1995).

Imwinkelried, "A Small Contribution to the Debate Over the Proposed Legislation Abolishing the Character Evidence Prohibition in Sex Offense Prosecutions," 44 Syracuse Law Review 1125 (1993)

·  **  E. Imwinkelried & T. Hallahan, Imwinkelried and Hallahan's California Evidence Code Annotated (Shepard's McGraw-Hill 1995).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, R. Wydick & J. Hogan, California Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 2d ed. 1994).

·  **  J. O'Brien, J. Hamilton, E. Buckley & E. Imwinkelried, Missouri Evidentiar Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 1994).

Imwinkelried & Carlson, "The Three Types of Closing Arguments," 18 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 115 (1994).

Imwinkelried, "The Next Step After Daubert: Developing a Similarly Epistemological Approach to Ensuring the Reliability of Nonscientific Expert Testimony," 15 Cardozo Law Review 2271 (1994).

·  **  D. Schlueter, S. Saltzburg, L. Schinasi & E. Imwinkelried, Military Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 1994).

Imwinkelried, "The Daubert Standard for Validating Scientific Evidence: Linking Us to the Scientific Past," 1 Shepard's Expert and Scientific Evidence Quarterly 493 (1994).

Imwinkelried, "The Daubert Decision on the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence: The Supreme Court Chooses the Right Piece for All the Evidentiary Puzzles," 9 St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary 5 (1993).

Imwinkelried, "A Brief Defense of the Supreme Court's Approach to the Interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence," 27 Indiana Law Review 267 (1993).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, P. Giannelli, F. Gilligan & F. Lederer, Courtroom Criminal Evidence (Michie Publishing Co. 2d ed., 1993).

‘Imwinkelried, "A New Antidote for an Opponent's Pretrial Discovery Misconduct: Treating the Misconduct at Trial as an Admission by Conduct of the Weakness of the Opponent's Case," 1993 Brigham Young University Law Review 793.

·  **  P. Giannelli & E. Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence (Michie Publishing Co. 2d 1993) (2 vols.).

·  **  Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Distinctions: Understanding the Federal Rules of Evidence (Michie Publishing Co. 1993).

Imwinkelried, "The Daubert Decision: Frye is Dead, Long Live the Federal Rules of Evidence," 29 Trial 60 (Sep. 1993).

Imwinkelried, "The Evolution of the Use of the Doctrine of Chances as Theory of Admissibility for Similar Fact Evidence," 22 Anglo-American Law Review 73 (1993).

·  **  R. Jonakait, H. Baer, E. Jones & E. Imwinkelried, New York Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 1993).

Imwinkelried, "The Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Christophersen v. Allied- Signal Corp.: The Neglected Issue of the Validity of Nonscientific Reasoning by Scientific Witnesses," 70 Denver University Law Review 473 (1993).

·  **  T. Blumoff, M. Johns & E. Imwinkelried, Pretrial Discovery - The Development of Professional Judgment (Michie Publishing Co. 1993).

Imwinkelried, "Forensic Science: The Role of the Hearsay Rule in Litigating Frye Challenges to The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence," 29 Criminal Law Bulletin 158 (Mar.-Apr. 1993).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Forensic Evidence in Arson Cases: Part II,” 29 Criminal LawBulletin 70 (Jan.-Feb. 1993).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Forensic Evidence in Arson Cases: Part I,” 28 Criminal Law Bulletin 554 (Nov.-Dec. 1992).

Imwinkelried, "The Worst Evidence Principle: The Best Hypothesis as to the Logical Structure of Evidence Law," 46 University of Miami Law Review 1069 (1992).

·  **  M. Bright, R. Carlson & E. Imwinkelried, California Objections at Trial (Butterworth Legal Publishers 1992).

Imwinkelried, "The Neglected Intermediate Premise in the Forensic Expert's Testimony," 11 International Journal of Medicine and Law 229 (1992).

·  **  D. Schlueter, J. Onion, C. Barrow & E. Imwinkelried, Texas Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 1992).

Imwinkelried, "Attempts to Limit the Scope of the Frye Standard for the Admission of Scientific Evidence; Confronting the Real Cost of the General Acceptance Test," 10 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 441 (1992).

Imwinkelried, "The Renaissance in American Trial Advocacy Literature: The Next Step," 16 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 175 (1992).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, "Determining Preliminary Facts Under Federal Rule 104," in 45 American Jurisprudence Trials 1 (1992).

Imwinkelried, "The Dispute Over the Doctrine of Chances," 7 Criminal Justice 16 (Fall 1992).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, The Methods of Attacking Scientific Evidence (Michie Publishing Co. 2d ed. 1992).

‘Imwinkelried, "The Constitutionalization of Hearsay: The Extent to Which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments Permit or Require the Liberalization of the Hearsay Rules," 76 Minnesota Law Review 521 (1992).

Imwinkelried, "The Pretrial Importance and Adaptation of the `Trial' Evidence Rules," 25 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 965 (1992).

Imwinkelried & Mendez, "Resurrecting California's Old Law on Character Evidence," 23 Pacific Law Journal 1005 (1992).

Imwinkelried, "A Comparativist Critique of the Interface Between Hearsay and Expert Opinion in American Evidence Law," 33 Boston College Law Review 1 (1991).

·  **  M. Graham, P. Hubbart, H. Black & E. Imwinkelried, Florida Evidentiary Foundations

(Michie Publishing Co. 1991).

·  **  M. Graham, R. Steigmann, W. Brandt & E. Imwinkelried, Illinois Evidentiary

Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 1991).
Imwinkelried, "Evidence Pedagogy in the Age of Statutes," 41 Journal of Legal

Education 227 (1991).
Imwinkelried, "Forensic Science: Hair Analysis," 27 Criminal Law Bulletin 447 (Sep.-

Oct. 1991).
Imwinkelried, "The Debate Over Drug Testing in the Workplace: A Novel Opportunity

for Public Scientific Education," 9 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 305 (1991).

·  **  R. Carlson, E. Imwinkelried & E. Kionka, Evidence in the Nineties

(Michie Publishing Co. 3d ed. 1991).
Imwinkelried & Scofield, "The Recognition of an Accused's Constitutional Right to

Introduce Expert Testimony Attacking the Weight of Prosecution Scientific Evidence: The Antidote for the Supreme Court's Mistaken Assumption in California v. Trombetta," 33 Arizona Law Review 59 (1991).

Imwinkelried, "The Right to `Plead Out' Issues and Block the Admission of Prejudicial Evidence: The Differential Treatment of Civil Litigants and the Criminal Accused as a Denial of Equal Protection," 40 Emory Law Journal 341 (1991).

Imwinkelried, "On Achieving Synergy in the Law School Curriculum," 66 Notre Dame Law Review 739 (1991).
Imwinkelried, "The Debate in the DNA Cases Over the Foundation For the Admission of

Scientific Evidence: The Importance of Human Error as a Cause of Forensic

Misanalysis," 69 Washington University Law Quarterly 19 (1991).
Imwinkelried, "The Liberalisation of American Criminal Evidence Law--A Possibility of

Convergence," 1990 Criminal Law Review 790.
Imwinkelried, "The Use of an Accused's Uncharged Misconduct to Prove Mens Rea:

The Doctrines Which Threaten to Engulf the Character Evidence Prohibition," 51

Ohio State Law Journal 575 (1990).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, Exculpatory Evidence: The Accused's Constitutional Right to

Introduce Favorable Evidence (Michie Publishing Co. 1990).
Imwinkelried, "The Case for Recognizing a New Constitutional Entitlement: The Right

to Present Favorable Evidence in Civil Cases," 1990 Utah Law Review 1. Imwinkelried, "The Case for a New Constitutional Entitlement: The Right to Present

Favorable Evidence in Civil Cases," 13 Trial Diplomacy Journal 74 (Sum. 1990). ‘Imwinkelried, "The Applicability of the Attorney-Client Privilege to Non-Testifying

Experts: Reestablishing the Boundaries Between the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Protection," 68 Washington University Law Quarterly 19 (1990).

Imwinkelried, "The Evolution of the American Test for the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence," 30 Medicine, Science, and Law 60 (1990).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, "Evidence Law and Tactics for the Proponents of Scientific Evidence," in Scientific and Expert Evidence 33 (E. Imwinkelried, ed. 1981).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, Handbook for the Trial of Contract Lawsuits: Strategies and Techniques (Prentice-Hall 1981).

Imwinkelried, "United States v. Payner and the Still Unanswered Questions About the Federal Courts' Supervisory Power Over Criminal Justice," 7 National Journal of Criminal Defense 1 (1981).

Imwinkelried, "A Sociological Approach to Legal Ethics," 30 American University Law Review 349 (1981).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Company 1980). Imwinkelried, "Scientific Evidence Update," 17th Annual Defending Criminal Cases 895

(Practising Law Institute 1979).
Imwinkelried, "Constitutional and Statutory Theories for the Admissibility of Defense

Evidence," 17th Annual Defending Criminal Cases 419 (Practising Law Institute

1979).

·  **  E. Imwinkelried, P. Giannelli, F. Gilligan, & F. Lederer, Criminal Evidence (West

Publishing Co. 1979).
Imwinkelried, "The Constitutionality of Introducing Evaluative Laboratory Reports

Against Criminal Defendants," 30 Hastings Law Journal 621 (1979). Contributor, Understanding and Using the California Evidence Code (California

Continuing Education of the Bar 1978).
Imwinkelried, "Uncharged Misconduct Evidence," Defending Criminal Cases 521

(Practising Law Institute 1978).
Imwinkelried, "Identification Evidence Update," Defending Criminal Cases 707

(Practising Law Institute 1978).
Imwinkelried,"Identification Evidence Update, "Defending Criminal Cases 775

(Practising Law Institute 1978).
Imwinkelried, "The Scope of the Residual Hearsay Exceptions in the Federal Rules of

Evidence," 15 San Diego Law Review 239 (1978).
Imwinkelried, "Identification Evidence," Defending Criminal Cases 659 (Practising Law

Institute 1978).
Imwinkelried, "Scientific Evidence," Defending Criminal Cases 797 (Practising Law

Institute 1977).
Imwinkelried, "Meeting Expert Testimony," Defending Criminal Cases 837 (Practicing

Law Institute 1978).
Imwinkelried & Zillman, "The Legacy of Greer v. Spock: The Public Forum Doctrine

and the Principle of the Military 's Political Neutrality," 65 Georgetown Law

Journal 773 (1977).
‘Imwinkelried & Zillman, "Constitutional Rights and Military Necessity: Some

Reflections on the Society Apart," 51 Notre Dame Lawyer 296 (1976). Imwinkelried & Zillman, "An Evolution in the First Amendment: Overbreadth Analysis

and Free Speech within the Military Community," 54 Texas Law Review 42 (1975).