Edward L. Imwinkelried

NAME: Edward J. Imwinkelried

ADDRESS: Edward L. Barrett, Jr. Professor of Law

University of California School of Law 400 Mrak Hall Drive Davis, California 95616-5201 (530) 752-0727

EDUCATION:  

College:

University of San Francisco, California Major - Political Science B.A. in 1967 magna cum laude. Class standing - 1st (through three undergraduate years).

Law Schools:

University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, California.  J.D. in 1969 magna cum laude. Class standing - 1st. The Judge Advocate General's School, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.  Graduated in June 1970. Class standing - 1st.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES:

Member of the following bars:  The United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Federal District court for the Northern District of California, Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Supreme Court of California, Supreme Court of Missouri (until 2010).

Distinguished Teaching Award, University of California, Davis School of Law, 2006.

Distinguished Teaching Award, University of California, Davis Academic Senate, 1999.

Award for Excellence in Teaching and Service in Continuing Education, University of California, Davis Extension, 2000.

Member, Governing Council,  International Association of Evidence Science.

International Advisory Board, Irish Jurist

Member, Committee on Drafting Multistate Evidence Questions, National Conference of Bar Examiners

Former Member, United States Code Committee, appointed under 10 U.S.C. { 946.

Member, Legal Issues Working Group, U.S. Justice Department Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence.

Board of Foreign Advisors,  China University of Political Science and Law.

Former Member, LEXIS Law School Editorial Board, second term beginning 2010.

Expert Testimony Columnist, National Law Journal, August 2000 to present.

Moderator, Federal Evidence Discussion Group, Litigation Forum, National Law Journal EXTRA, 1995.

Chair, University of California Planning Study Committee for Professional Education in Law.

Chair, Self-Study Committee, University of California, Davis, School of Law, 1995-96.

Member, Expert Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Vice-Chair, Forensic Evidence Committee, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Member, American Association of Law Schools Special Committee on Substance Abuse in Law Schools.

Former chairperson, Committee on Programs and Institutes, Criminal Justice Section, American Bar Association.

Former member, Committee on Teaching Criminal Trial Advocacy, Criminal Justice Section, American Bar Association.

Former member, Committee on Criminal Code Revision, Criminal Justice Section, American Bar Association.

Former member, Subcommittee on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence, Criminal Justice Section, American Bar Association.

Consultant, National Institute of Justice.

Former chairperson, Evidence Section, American Association of Law Schools.

Distinguished Faculty, National College of District Attorneys, South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.

Legal Consultant, Surgeon General's Commission on Urinalysis Testing in the Armed Services, 1984.

Consultant, Publications Committee, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Member, Advisory Board, National Journal of Trial Advocacy.

Contributing Editor, Criminal Law Bulletin.

Contributing Editor, The Champion, Magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Former member, Legal Rights and Justice Task Force White House Conference on Youth, 1971.

Former Lecturer, BAR/BRI Bar Review Course.

Distinguished Teaching Award, University of California, Davis Law School, 1989.

Outstanding Professor Award, Washington University School of Law, 1982 and 1985.

Reviewer, Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress.

LEGAL EXPERIENCE:

September 1969-February 1970.  Consumer Unit, San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation, San Francisco, California.

June 1970-June 1971.  Post Judge Advocate, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado.  Prosecuting attorney before United States Magistrate.  Defense counsel in courts-martial.

August 1971 - 1972.  Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, XXIV Corps and 196th Light Infantry Brigade, Republic of Vietnam.  Claims Officer, Summary court-martial officer.

July 1972 - June 1974.  Instructor, Criminal Law Division, the Judge Advocate General's School, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.  Lecturer on Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Crimes, and Trial Advocacy.

August 1974 - June 1979.  Professor of Law, School of Law, University of San Diego.  Instructor for Evidence, Trial Techniques, Moot Court, Contracts, and Legal Writing.

January 1981 - May 1981.  Visiting Professor of Law, University of Illinois.  Instructor for Legal Profession.

Summer 1981.  Professor of Law, University of San Diego program in Guadalajara, Mexico.  Instructor for Comparative Mexican-American Contract Law.

July 1979 - June 1985.  Professor of Law, School of Law, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.  Instructor for Evidence, Trial Techniques, Scientific Evidence, Legal Ethics, and Contracts.

Intersession 1997.  Visiting Professor of Law, University of Houston. Instructor for Scientific Evidence.

Spring 2003.  Visiting Professor of Law, University College Dublin, Ireland.

Fall 2006.  Visiting Professor, the Moritz College of Law, the Ohio State University.

PUBLICATIONS:

**     Giannelli, Imwinkelried & Peterson, “Reference Guide on Forensic Identification, Expertise,” in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 55 (3d ed. 2011).

Imwinkelried, “Using the National Research Council’s Report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009), in the Courtroom,” 47 Criminal Law Bulletin 975 (2011).

Imwinkelried, “The Dangerous Trend Blurring the Distinction Between a Reasonable Expectation of Confidentiality in Privilege Law and a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence,” 57 Loyola Law Review 1 (2011).

Imwinkelried, “The End of the Era of Proxies,” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Evidence Law and Forensic Science 8 (Beijing2011).

Imwinkelried & Amoroso, “The Application of the Attorney-Client Privilege to Interactions Among Clients, Attorneys, and Experts in the Age of Consultants:The Need for a More Precise, Fundamental Analysis,” 48 Houston Law Review 265 (2011).

Imwinkelried, “Serendipitous Timing: The Coincidental Emergence of the New Brain Science and the Advent of an Epistemological Approach to Determining the Admissibility of Expert Testimony,” 62 Mercer Law Review 959 (2011).

Cherry, Imwinkelried & Schenk, “Another ‘View’ of Fingerprint Evidence,” 94 Judicature 306 (May-June 2011).

**     Schlueter, Onion & Imwinkelried, Texas Evidentiary Foundations (LexisNexis 4th ed.              2011).

Harmon & Imwinkelried, “The Admissibility of Evidence of the Accused’s Opportunity to Retest Physical Evidence in Criminal Cases,” 37 New England Journal of Criminal and Civil Confinement 3 (2011).

Imwinkelried, “A Brief Essay on Aristotle, Philosopher-Litigator,” 34 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 135 (2010).

Clemens & Imwinkelried, “Forensic Intoxication Testing: From Breath to Saliva? 47 Criminal Law Bulletin 131 (2011).

Imwinkelried, “In Memoriam: A Tribute to David P. Leonard,” 43 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 739 (2010).

**     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).

Chan & Imwinkelried, “The Use of Forensic Entomology in Determining the Time of Death,” 45 Criminal Law Bulletin 3 (2009).

Imwinkelried & Cherry, “Redress for Loss of Private E-Data,” 45 Trial 48 (February 2009).

Imwinkelried & Cherry, “Winning Forensic Evidence Cases–Sometimes Without Even Using an Expert Witness,” 32 The Champion 24 (Nov./Dec. 2008).

Cherry & Imwinkelried, “Viewpoint: Internet Theft Is Avoidable,” 92 Judicature 7 (July-Aug. 2008).

Kitano & Imwinkelried, “Forensic Detection of Seminal Fluid by Using Prostate Specific Antigen,” 44 Criminal Law Bulletin 747 (2008).

**     E. Imwinkelried, “Chapter 26A: Trial Strategies and Techniques for Commercial Lawsuits,” in 3 Debtor-Creditor Law (LexisNexis Theodore Eisenberg, ed. 2008).

**     M. Bright, R. Carlson & E. Imwinkelried, Objections at Trial (National Institute of  Trial Advocacy 5th ed. 2008).

Anacker & Imwinkelried, “Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act Criminal Defense,” 37 Southwestern University Law Review 267 (2008).

**     E. Imwinkelried & T. Hallahan, California Trial Objections (Thomson-West 2008).

**     L. Heffernan, R. Ryan & E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations–Irish Edition (Tottel Pub. 2008)

Imwinkelried, “Book Review: Law for the Expert Witness by Daniel A. Bronstein,”48 Jurimetrics 241 (Wint. 2008).

Imwinkelried, “The Case Against Abandoning the Search for Substantive Accuracy,”38 Seton Hall Law Review 1031 (2008).

**     E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations (7th ed. 2008) Land & Imwinkelried, “Confidence Intervals: How Much Confidence Should the Courts Have in Testimony About a Sample Statistic?,” 44 Criminal Law Bulletin 257 (Mar.-Apr. 2008)

**     E. Imwinkelried & D. Blinka, Criminal Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS 2d ed. 2007)

Imwinkelried, “Reshaping the ‘Grotesque’ Doctrine of Character Evidence: The Reform Implications of the Most Recent Psychological Research,” 36 Southwestern University Law Review 741 (2008), reprinted in Law and Justice: Psychology Role-Play 226 (Amicus Book 2010).

Imwinkelried, “The Lessons to be Learned from the Last Three Decades of American Legal Experience with Expert Testimony,” 15 Evidence Science 181 (Dec.2007).

Imwinkelried, “Clarifying the Curative Admissibility Doctrine: Using the Principles of Forfeiture and Deterrence to Shape the Relief for an Opponent’s Evidentiary Misconduct,” 76 Fordham Law Review 1295 (2007).

**     D. Schlueter, S. Saltsburg, L. Schinasi & E. Imwinkelried, Military Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS 3d ed. 2007).

Imwinkelried, “Impoverishing the Trier of Fact: Excluding the Proponent’s Expert Testimony Due to the Opponent’s Inability to Afford Rebuttal Evidence,” 40 Connecticut Law Review 317 (2007).

Imwinkelried, “Defeating Deference: A Practitioner’s Guide to Overcoming the Chevron Doctrine,” 31 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 69 (2007).

**     P. Giannelli & E. Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence (LEXIS 4th ed. 2007)(2 vols.).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Scientific Evidence–and Statutes,” 43 Criminal LawBulletin 739 (Sep.-Oct. 2007).

Cherry & Imwinkelried, “The Danger of Exposure to the Internet,” 91 Judicature 57 (Sep.-Oct. 2007).

Imwinkelried, “Draft Article V of the Federal Rules of Evidence on Privileges, One of the Most Influential Pieces of Legislation Never Enacted: The Strength of the Ingroup Loyalty of the Federal Judiciary,” 58 Alabama Law Review 41 (2006).

Cherry & Imwinkelried, “How Can We Improve the Reliability of Fingerprint Identification,” 90 Judicature 55 (Sep.-Oct. 2006).

Cherry & Imwinkelried, “A Cautionary Note About Fingerprint Analysis and Reliance on Digital Technology,” 89 Judicature 339 (May-June 2006).

**     Imwinkelried, “United States v. Woods: A Story of the Triumph of Tradition,” in Evidence Stories 59 (R.Lempert, ed. 2006).

Imwinkelried, “The Organization of the Evidence Course: The ‘Preliminaries’ to Helping Students Develop the Skill of Identifying Nonhearsay,” 50 St. Louis University Law Journal 1047 (2006).

Imwinkelried, “The Alienability of Evidentiary Privileges: Of Property and Evidence, Burden and Benefit, Hearsay and Privilege,” 80 St. John’s Law Review 497 (2006).

Anacker & Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: The Confusing World of Controlled Substance Analogue (CSA) Criminal Defense,” 42 Criminal Law Bulletin 744 (Nov.-Dec. 2006).

**     E. Imwinkelried, McCormick, Evidence (Thomson West 6th ed. 2006)(2 vols.).

Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: The Importance of Daubert in Frye Jurisdictions,” 42 Criminal Law Bulletin 215 (Mar.-Apr. 2006).

**     R. Mosteller, D. Beskind, C. Eagles, T. Ross & E. Imwinkelried, North Carolina Evidentiary Foundations (2d ed. 2006).

**     E. Imwinkelried, P. Giannelli, F. Gilligan & F. Lederer, Courtroom Criminal Evidence (4th ed. 2005)(2 vols.).

Imwinkelried, “An Evidentiary Paradox: Defending the Character Evidence Prohibition by Upholding a Non-Character Theory of Logical Relevance, the Doctrine of Chances,” 40 University of Richmond Law Review 419 (2006).

Heffernan & Imwinkelried, “The Accused’s Constitutional Right to Introduce Critical, Demonstrably Reliable Exculpatory Evidence,” 40 Irish Jurist 111 (2005).

Min & Imwinkelried, “Forensic Science: Palynology, the Use of Pollen and Spores as Associative Trace Evidence,” 41 Criminal Law Bulletin 655 (Nov.-Dec. 2005).

Johns & Imwinkelried, “Using Federal Civil Rights Laws to Right the Wrong of Evidence Spoliation in Civil Cases in State Court,” 28 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 279 (2004).

Imwinkelried, “Can This Photo Be Trusted?,” 41 Trial 48 (Oct. 2005).

**     E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations (LEXIS Law Pub. 6th ed. 2005).

Imwinkelried, “Daubert Attacks: The Three Fundamentally Different Arguments That the Opponent Can Make Under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a),” 41 Criminal Law Bulletin 423 (July-Aug. 2005).

Imwinkelried, “A More Modest Proposal Than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the Concept of Interpretative Intention,” 68 Albany Law Review 949 (2005).

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, “Privacy and Privilege in Civil Family Law Disputes,” 18 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 75 (2002).

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, “The Dubiety of Social Engineering Through Evidence:  A Reply to 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).

Imwinkelried, “Introduction to the Evidence Symposium: The New Generation of Realists in Evidence Law,” 55 University of Miami Law Review 527 (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 EvidenceLaw.” 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, “A Final Comment -- The Importance of the Procedural Framework,” 50 CaseWestern Reserve Law Review 669 (2000).

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).

Imwinkelried, “A Radical Approach to the Law of Impeachment:  The Statutory Outer Limits,”  22 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 1 (1998).

**     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, “The Blockbuster Adams Decision,” 34 Trial 26 (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, “Forensic Science: The Second Prong of the Daubert Test: Disturbing Implications of Two Recent Civil Cases,” 33 Criminal Law Bulleting 570 (Nov.-Dec. 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, "Coming to Grips with Scientific Research in Daubert's 'Brave New World':  The Courts' Need to Appreciate the Evidentiary Differences between Validity and Proficiency Studies," 61 Brooklyn Law Review 1247 (1995).

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, "Jury Selection:  An Empirical Investigation of 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, "An Hegelian Approach to Privileges Under Federal Rule of Evidence 501:  The Restrictive Thesis, the Expansive Antithesis, and the Contextual Synthesis," 73 Nebraska Law Review 511 (1994).

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 Educational Significance of the Syllogistic Structure of Expert Testimony," 87 Northwestern University Law Review 1148 (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 & Margolin, "The Case for the Admissibility of Defense Testimony About Customary Political Practices in Official Corruption Prosecutions," 29 American Criminal Law Review 1 (1991).

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).

Imwinkelried, "The Court Appointment of Expert Witnesses in the United States:  A Failed Experiment," 8 International Journal of Medicine and Law 601 (1989).

Imwinkelried, "The Admissibility of Similar Facts Evidence in Civil Cases in the United Kingdom and the United States:  The Need for Rethinking on Both Sides of the Atlantic," 9 Liverpool Law Review 137 (1989).

Imwinkelried, "Uncharged Misconduct:  What Would Irving Younger Have Done?," 16 Litigation 6 (Fall 1989).

**     E. Imwinkelried, Contract Lawsuits:  Trial Strategies and Techniques (Michie Publishing Co. 2d ed. 1989).

Imwinkelried, "The Education Philosophy of the Trial Practice Course:  Reweaving the Seamless Web," 23 Georgia Law Review 663 (1989).

Imwinkelried, "A Comparative Law Analysis of the Standard for Admitting Scientific Evidence:  The United States Stands Alone," 42 Forensic Science International 16 (1989).

Imwinkelried, "The Importance of the Memory Factor in Analyzing the Reliability of Hearsay Testimony:  A Lesson Slowly Learnt--and Quickly Forgotten," 41 Florida Law Review 215 (1989).

**     Supplement Editor, 2 Evidence in America:  The Federal Rules in the States (MichiePublishing Co. 1987).

**     R. Carlson & E. Imwinkelried, Dynamics of Trial Practice:  Problems and Materials (West Publishing Co. 1989).

**     E. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 2d ed. 1989).

**     E. Imwinkelried, "Evidentiary Objections," in Masters of Trial Practice 53 (Wiley Law Publications 1988).

**     E. Imwinkelried, R. Wydick & J. Hogan, California Evidentiary Foundations (Michie Publishing Co. 1988).

Imwinkelried, "The 'Bases' of Expert Testimony:  The Syllogistic Structure of Scientific Testimony," 67 North Carolina Law Review 1 (1988).

Imwinkelried, "The Meaning of Probative Value and Prejudice in Federal Rule of Evidence 403:  Can Rule 403 Be Used to Resurrect the Common Law of Evidence?" 41 Vanderbilt Law Review 879 (1988).

Imwinkelried, "The Worst Surprise of All:  No Right to Pretrial Discovery of the Prosecution's Uncharged Misconduct Evidence," 56 Fordham Law Review 247 (1987).

Imwinkelried, "Federal Rule of Evidence 402:  The Second Revolution," 6 The Review of Litigation 129 (1987).

Imwinkelried, "False Positive:  Shoddy Drug Testing Is Jeopardizing the Jobs of Millions," 27  The Sciences 22 (Sep./Oct. 1987).

Imwinkelried & Blumoff, "Strategic Planning in Discovery:  Planning to Win the Pretrial Trial," 23 Trial 22 (Aug. 1987).

**     E. Imwinkelried, P. Giannelli, F. Gilligan & F. Lederer, Courtroom Criminal Evidence  (Michie Publishing Company 1987).

Imwinkelried & Schwed, "Guidelines for Drafting Understandable Instructions:  An Introduction to the Use of Psycholinguistics,"  23 Criminal Law Bulletin 135 (Mar.-Apr. 1987).

Imwinkelried, "Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Wisdom of Governmental Prohibition or Regulation of Employee Urinalysis Testing," 11 Nova Law Review 563 (1987).

Imwinkelried, "Of Evidence and Equal Protection:  The Unconstitutionality of Excluding Government Agents' Statements Offered as Vicarious Admissions Against the Prosecution," 71 Minnesota Law Review 269 (1986).

**     E. Imwinkelried & T. Blumoff, Pretrial Discovery:  Strategy and Tactics (Callaghan and　Co. 1986).

**     R. Carlson, E. Imwinkelried & E. Kionka, Materials for the Study of Evidence (Michie  Publishing Company 1983).

Imwinkelried, "Science Take the Stand," 26 The Sciences 20 (Nov.-Dec. 1986).

**     P. Giannelli & E. Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence (Michie Publishing Company 1986).

Imwinkelried, "The Development of Professional Judgment in Law School Litigation Courses:  The Concepts of Trial Theory and Theme," 39 Vanderbilt Law Review 59 (1986).

Imwinkelried, "Uncharged Misconduct," 1 Criminal Justice 6 (Sum. 1986).

Imwinkelried, "Demeanor Impeachment:  Law and Tactics," 9 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 183 (1985).

Imwinkelried, "Limiting Instructions on Uncharged Misconduct Evidence:  The Last Line of Defense Against Jury Misuse of the Evidence," 8 Trial Diplomacy Journal 23 (Fall 1985).

Imwinkelried, "The Need to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): The Threat to the Future of the Federal Rules of Evidence," 30 Villanova Law Review 1465 (1985).

Imwinkelried, "The Plan Theory for Admitting Evidence of the Defendant's Uncharged Crimes:  A Microcosm of the Flaws in the Uncharged Misconduct Doctrine," 50 Missouri Law Review 1 (1985).

Imwinkelried, "Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979):  Reopening of the Pandora's Box of the Legal Sufficiency of Drug Identification Evidence," 73 Kentucky Law Journal 1 (1985).

Imwinkelried, "Uncharged Misconduct," 12 Litigation 25 (Fall 1985).

Imwinkelried, "Uncharged Misconduct Evidence," 20 Trial 58 (Nov. 1984).

Imwinkelried, "Judge Versus Jury:  Who Should Decide Questions of Preliminary Facts Conditioning the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence?," 25 William & Mary Law Review 577 (1984).

**     E. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence (Callaghan and Company 1984).

Imwinkelried & P. Giannelli, "Depositions in Criminal Practice,"11 Criminal Defense 12

(Jan. - Feb. 1984).

**     R. Carlson, E. Imwinkelried & E. Kionka, Materials for the Study of Evidence (Michie Publishing Company 1983).

Imwinkelried, "The Standard for Admitting Scientific Evidence:  A Critique from the Perspective of Juror Psychology," 28 Villanova Law Review 554 (1983).

Imwinkelried & P. Giannelli, "Stipulations in Criminal Cases," 10 Criminal Defense 4 (May - June 1983).

**     E. Imwinkelried, The Methods of Attacking Scientific Evidence (Michie Publishing Company 1982).

Imwinkelried, "Forensic Hair Analysis:  The Case Against the Underemployment of Scientific Evidence," 39 Washington & Lee Law Review 41 (1982).

Imwinkelried, "The Use of Learned Scientific Treatises Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(18), 18 Trial 56 (Feb. 1982).

Imwinkelried, "A New Era in the Evolution of Scientific Evidence - A Primer on Evaluating the Weight of Scientific Evidence," 23 William & Mary Law Review 261 (1981).

**     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).

Imwinkelried & Gilligan, "The Unconstitutional Burden of Article 15:  A Rebuttal," 83 Yale Law Journal 524 (1974).

Imwinkelried & Mullin, "The Court of Military Appeals:  A Survey of Recent Decisions," 62  Military Law Review 115 (1974).

Imwinkelried, "Chambers v. Mississippi, ___ U.S. ___ (1973):  The Constitutional Right to Present Defense Evidence," 62 Military Law Review 225 (1973).

Imwinkelried, "The Identification of Original, Real Evidence," 61 Military Law Review 145  (1973).

Imwinkelried, "The New Federal Rules of Evidence - Part IV," The Army Lawyer (July 1973).

Imwinkelried, "The New Federal Rules of Evidence - Part III," The Army Lawyer (June 1973).

Imwinkelried, "The New Federal Rules of Evidence - Part II," The Army Lawyer (May 1973).

Imwinkelried, "The New Federal Rules of Evidence - Part I," The Army Lawyer (April 1973).

**     Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-173; Military Justice - Trial Procedure (1973).

Comment, "Substantive and Procedural Due Process in Union Disciplinary Proceedings," 3 University of San Francisco Law Review 389 (1969).

Comment, "The Extent of the Obligations to Buy and Sell in Requirements Contracts," 3 University of San Francisco Law Review 99 (1968).

**     The publications marked with two asterisks are books or book chapters. 22