Bali, A. S., Martire, K. A., & Edmond, G. (2021). Lay comprehension of statistical evidence: A novel measurement approach. Law and Human Behavior, 45(4), 370–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000457

Basu, N., Bali, A.S., Weber, P., Rosas-Aguilar, C., Edmond, G., Martire, K.A. & Morrison, G.S. (2022). Speaker identification in courtroom contexts – Part I: Individual listeners compared to forensic voice comparison based on automatic-speaker-recognition technology, Forensic Science International, 341, 111499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111499

Brook, C., Lynøe, N., Eriksson, A. & Balding, D. (2021). Retraction of a peer reviewed article suggests ongoing problems with Australian forensic science. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3(10), 100208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100208

Chin, J. M. (2022). Open science to advance reproducible legal research: Investigating IMM v The Queen. ANU Journal of Law and Technology, 3(1) 32-54. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/2j3ye or preprint

Chin, J.M. (2020). Pre-recorded expert evidence in intimate partner violence cases. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 32(4), 458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1830505 

Chin, J. M., Cullen, J. H., & Clarke, B. (2023). The prejudices of expert evidence. Monash Law Review, 48(2), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/nxcvy or preprint

Chin, J.M., Edmond, G., & Roberts A. (2022). The High Court on Probative Value and Reliability in the Uniform Evidence Law. Federal Law Review, 50(1), 104-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0067205X211066140 or [PDF]

Chin, J. M., & Holcombe, O.A. (2022). Rethinking replication in empirical legal research. The University of Western Australia Law Review, 49(2), 76-112. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/4up65 or preprint

Chin, J. M., & Ibaviosa, M.C. (2022). Beyond CSI: Calibrating public beliefs about the reliability of forensic science through openness and transparency. Science & Justice, 62(3), 272-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.02.006.

Chin, J. M., Lagisz, M., & Nakagawa, S. (2022). Where is the evidence in evidence-based law reform? UNSW Law Journal, 45(3), 1124-1154. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/698ze

Chin, J.M., Lutsky, M., & Dror, I. E.  (2019). The biases of experts: An empirical analysis of expert witness challenges. Manitoba Law Journal. 42(4), 21. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/m3s5p 

Chin, J.M. & McFadden, R. (2020). Expert witness codes of conduct for forensic practitioners: a review and proposal for reform” Canadian Journal of Law and Justice. 2, 23. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/54jau  

Chin, J.M., McFadden, R. & Edmond G. (2020) Forensic science needs registered reports. Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2, 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.10.005 

Chin, J. M., & Neal, T. M. (2022). Further caution is required on what memory experts can reliably say. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, 4(100113). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsiml.2022.100113

Chin, J.M.,  Ribeiro, G., & Reardon, A. (2019). Open Forensic Science. The Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 6(1), 255. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz009

Chin, J.M, San Roque, M., McFadden, R. (2020). The New Psychology of Expert Witness Procedure. Sydney Law Review, 42(1), 69 - 96. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3564796

Chin, J.M. & White, D. (2019). Forensic Bitemark Identification Evidence in Canada. UBC Law Review. 62(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/m4ndz

Chin, J. M., & Zeiler, K. (2021). Replicability in empirical legal research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17(1), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-121620-085055

Chin, J. M., & Zeiler, K. (2021). Replicability in empirical legal research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17(1), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-121620-085055

Chin, J. M., Zeilier, K., Dilevski, N., Holcombe, O.A., Gatfield-Jeffries, R., Bishop, R., Vazire, S., & Schiavone, S. (2023). The transparency of quantitative empirical legal research published in highly ranked law journals (2018–2020): an observational study. F1000 Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127563.1 or preprint

Cunliffe, E. (2020). The magic gun: Settler legality, forensic science, and the Stanley trial. Canadian Bar Review, 98(2), 270-314. https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/view/4609

Cunliffe, E. (2020). Charter rights, state expertise: Testing state claims to expert knowledge. Supreme Court Law Review (2nd series), 94, 367-390. https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs/536/

Cunliffe, E. & Edmond, G. (2021). Justice without science? Judging the reliability of forensic science in Canada. The Canadian bar review, 99(1), 65 - 65.

Edmond, G. (2022). Latent justice? A review of adversarial challenges to fingerprint evidence, Science and Justice, 62(1), 21 - 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.10.006

Edmond, G., Biber, K., Kemp, R. I., & Porter, G. (2009). Law’s looking glass: Expert identification evidence derived from photographic and video images. Current issues in criminal justice, 20(3), 337–377. [PDF]

Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E., Hamer, D. Fingerprint comparison and adversarialism: The scientific and historical evidence. Modern Law Review, 83(6), 1287-1327. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-2230.12565?af=R

Edmond, G., Martire, K. A., & San Roque, M. (2011). ‘Mere guesswork’: Cross-lingual voice comparisons and the jury. Sydney Law Review, 33(3), 395-425. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/sydney33&div=25&id=&page=

Edmond, G., Martire, K. A., & San Roque, M. (2011). Unsound law: Issues with (“expert”) voice comparison evidence. Melbourne University Law Review, 35, 52-112. [PDF]

Edmond, G., Martire, K.A., & San Roque, M. (2017). Expert reports and the forensic sciences. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 40(2), 590–637. [PDF]

Edmond, G., Martire, K., Found, B., Kemp, R., Hamer, D., Hibbert, B., Ligertwood, A., Porter, G., San Roque, M., Searston, R. A., Tangen, J. M., Thompson, M. B., & White, D. (2014). How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for lawyers. Australian Bar Review, 39(2), 174-197. [PDF]

Edmond, G., San Roque, M., Cole, S., Kemp, R., Martire, K. A., Porter, G., & Tangen, J. M. (2013). Justica’s gaze: Surveillance, evidence and the criminal trial. Surveillance & Society, 11(3), 252-271. https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/justicia/4970 [PDF]

Edmond, G., Tangen, J. M., Searston, R. A., & Dror, I. E. (2015). Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: The implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals. Law, Probability & Risk, 14(1),1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu018 [PDF]

Edmond, G., White, D., Towler, A., San, R.M. & Kemp R. (2021). Facial recognition and image comparison evidence: Identification by investigators, familiars, experts, super-recognisers and algorithm. Melbourne University Law Review, 45(1), 99-160. [PDF]

Hamer, D. (2021). Myths, Misconceptions and Mixed Messages: An Early Look at the New Tendency and Coincidence Evidence Provisions. Criminal Law Journal, 45(4), 232-252. [PDF]

Hamer, D. (2022). Conceptions and Degrees of Innocence: The Principles, Pragmatics, and Policies of the Innocence Movement. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2022.2114870

Helm, R.K & Growns, B. (2022). Prevalence estimates as priors: juror characteristics, perceived base rates, and verdicts in cases reliant on complainant and defendant testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(4), 891-904. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3978

Lee, Harrison D. H., Masser, Barbara M., Tangen, Jason M. and McKimmie, Blake M. (2022). The effects of victim testimony order and judicial education on juror decision-making in trials for rape. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2022.2099546

Lee, H. D. H., McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Guided by the rape schema: The influence of event order on how jurors evaluate the victim's testimony in cases of rape. Psychology, Crime & Law, 29(1), 25-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2021.1984483

Lee, D.H.L., Tangen, M. J., McKimmie, M.B., & Masser, Barbara M. (2022). The influence of event order on the narratives jurors construct and tell in cases of rape. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2022.2109633

Martire, K. A., & Edmond, G. (2017). Rethinking expert opinion evidence. Melbourne University Law Review, 40(3), 967–998. [PDF]

Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2008). Knowledge of eyewitness identification issues: A survey of public defenders in New South Wales. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 15(1), 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710701873973 [PDF]

Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2009). The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 33(3), 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9134-z

Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2011). Can experts help jurors to evaluate eyewitness evidence? A review of eyewitness expert effects. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16(1), 24-36. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532509X477225

Martire, K. A., & Montgomery-Farrer, B. (2020). Judging experts: Australian magistrates’ evaluations of expert opinion quality. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1751334

Morrison, G.S., Neumann, C., Geoghegan, P.H., Edmond, G., Grant, T., Ostrum, R.B., Roberts, P., Saks, M., Syndercombe, C. D., Thompson, W.C. & Zabell, S. (2021). Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3(3), 100149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100149

Nash, C., Dioso-Villa, R., & Porter, L. (2021). Factors Contributing to Guilty Plea Wrongful Convictions: A Quantitative Analysis of Australian Appellate Court Judgments. Crime & Delinquency. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211054723

Neal, S.M.T., Martire, A.K., Johan, L.J., Mathers, M.E. & Otto, K.R. (2022). The Law Meets Psychological Expertise: Eight Best Practices to Improve Forensic Psychological Assessment. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 18(1), 169-192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148

Ribeiro, G., Likwornik, H., & Chin, J. M. (2022). Visual decision aids: Improving laypeople's understanding of forensic science evidence. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000026 or preprint

Ribeiro, G., McKimmie, B. M., & Tangen, M. J. (2022). Diagnostic information produces better-calibrated judgments about forensic comparison evidence than likelihood ratios. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000062

Roberts, A., & Ormerod, D. (2021). The Full Picture or Too Much Information? Evidential Use of Body-Worn Camera Recordings. Criminal Law Review, 8, 620-643.

Scudder, N., & Hamer, D. (2006). Exclusionary DNA of forensic workers and Australian forensic procedures legislation. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18(1), 125-146. [PDF]

Searston, R. A., & Chin, J. M. (2019). The legal and scientific challenge of black box expertise. The University of Queensland Law Journal, 38(2), 237-260. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3411352

Webb, P., Chin, J., Williams, C.-L., & Dennis, K. (2021). Technological advocacy and crime reporting in an HBCU setting: Addressing the prospect of legal cynicism in the Ebony Tower. Journal of Black Studies. Advance online publication, 53(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/00219347211057201

White, D., & Kemp, R. I. (2019). Identifying people from images. In N. Brewer & A. B. Douglass, Psychological science and the law (pp. 238–265). The Guilford Press. [PDF]

Williamson, H., Sato, M., & Dioso-Villa, R. (2021). Wrongful convictions and erroneous acquittals: Applying Packer's model to examine public perceptions of judicial errors in Australia. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211066826

Wray-Jones, N. & Chin, J. M. (2021) “Can ADR improve expert evidence?” 95 The Australian Law Journal 467. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3863689

Younan, M. & Martire, K.A. (2021). Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.785677