BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES AND REPORTS
False Confessions



Saul M. Kassin, False Confessions Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, 17
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOL. SCI. 249 (2008), available at
http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Kassin%20(2008)%20%20APS%20CD.pdf.
GISLI GUDJONSSON, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INTERROGATIONS, CONFESSIONS, AND TESTIMONY
(2004) (treatise on law and science of false confessions).
Richard A. Leo & Richard J. Ofshe, The Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivations of
Liberty and Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Psychological Interrogation, 88 J. CRIM. L. &
CRIMINOLOGY 429 (1998).
Eyewitness Testimony
 Gary Wells & Elizabeth Olson, Eyewitness Testimony, 54 ANN. REV. PSYCHOL. 277 (2003)
(review of variables that affect eyewitness identifications).
 Saul M. Kassin et al., On the “General Acceptance” of Eyewitness Testimony Research: A New
Survey of the Experts, 56 AM. PSYCHOL. 405 (2001).
Fingerprints
 NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NAT’L ACADS., STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE
UNITED STATES: A PATH FORWARD (2009).
Ballistics
 NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NAT’L ACADS., BALLISTIC IMAGING (2008).
 Adina Schwartz, A Systematic Challenge to the Reliability and Admissibility of Firearms and
Toolmark Identification, 6 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 2 (2005).
 Alfred Biasotti & John Murdoch, The Scientific Basis of Firearms and Toolmark Identification, in
3 MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY 495 (Faigman
et al. eds., 2002).
CASES
False Confessions
 United States v. Roark, 753 F.2d 991 (11th Cir. 1985) (where the exclusion of expert testimony
regarding inculpatory statements and confessions that were involuntary was reversible error; such
testimony had probative value for the jury to consider).
Ballistics (Tool Marks)
 United States v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Mass. 2005) (holding that methods used to
analyze the ballistics/toolmark evidence were flawed and lacked reliability understood in
Daubert).
Right to Expert Assistance
 Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (where defendant made showing that sanity is going to be a
significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires access to a psychiatrist’s assistance on this
issue should the defendant not be able to afford one).
 Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 323 n.1 (1985) (reserving the “equally important questions
of whether and when an indigent defendant is entitled to non-psychiatric expert assistance”).
Right to Expert Assistance: Three-Prong Test
 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (applying a three-factor approach to determining
whether due process requires that a defendant receive expert assistance for his or her defense).
Admissibility of Expert Testimony
 Kuhmo Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (holding that the judge may serve as
“gatekeeper” for not only scientific testimony, but for all expert testimony).
 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (finding when the question involved
does not lie within common knowledge or experience, then the opinions of an expert witness in
that particular science, trade or art is admissible in evidence).
 Compton v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 716, 250 S.E.2d 749 (1979) (expert opinion and
testimony are admissible where "the jury, or the court trying a case without a jury, is
confronted with issues which require scientific or specialized knowledge or experience in
order to be properly understood, and which cannot be determined intelligently merely
from the deductions made and inferences drawn on the basis of ordinary knowledge,
common sense, and practical experience gained in the ordinary affairs of life").
Expert Funding
 Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 82-83 (1985) (where defendant made showing that sanity is going
to be a significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires access to a psychiatrist’s assistance on
this issue should the defendant not be able to afford one).
 Husske v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 203, 476 S.E.2d 920 (1996).
 Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 268 Va. 161, 597 S.E.2d 197 (2004).
 Singleton v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 841 (1993) (expense for expert assistance must be
reasonable).
STATUTES
Payment of the Expert
 Virginia Code 19.2-163 (the court shall direct the payment of reasonable expenses incurred

by court-appointed counsel)
Virginia Code 19.2-332 (in criminal cases, authorizes payment of services rendered
pursuant to prior approval of the court for a sum that it deems reasonable, including
mileage)
RULES OF EVIDENCE

Rules 2:702 to 2:706