Edward J. Imwinkelried
- Co-authors
- John E. B. MyersAllison D. RedlichGail S. GoodmanJason LuuDavid H. KayePaul C. GiannelliJoseph L. PetersonWilliam A. Tobin
- Topics
- Criminal Law and Evidence (25 papers)Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (21 papers)Jury Decision Making Processes (18 papers)
- Cited by
- LawMedical TerminologyGender Studies
- Journals
- Forensic Science InternationalBehavioral Sciences & the LawPsychology Public Policy and Law
- Partner nations
- United StatesLatviaCanada
In The Last Decade
Edward J. Imwinkelried
59 papers receiving 192 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 75
- Social Psychology 63
- Law 63
- Clinical Psychology 58
- Cognitive Neuroscience 46
- Gender Studies 37
Countries citing papers authored by Edward J. Imwinkelried
This map shows the geographic impact of Edward J. Imwinkelried's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Edward J. Imwinkelried with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Edward J. Imwinkelried more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Edward J. Imwinkelried
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Edward J. Imwinkelried. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Edward J. Imwinkelried. The network helps show where Edward J. Imwinkelried may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Edward J. Imwinkelried
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Edward J. Imwinkelried. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Edward J. Imwinkelried based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Edward J. Imwinkelried. Edward J. Imwinkelried is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Virginia State Bar Association | 0 |
| 2 | Computer Source Code: A Source of the Growing Controversy Over the Reliability of Automated Forensic Techniques | 2 |
| 3 | Fundamental social rights: case law of the European Social Charter | 4 |
| 4 | The Daubert Decision on the Admissability of Scientific Evidence: The Supreme Court Chooses the Right Piece for All the Evidentiary Puzzles | 0 |
| 5 | 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)) | 0 |
| 6 | Impoverishing the Trier of Fact: Excluding the Proponent's Expert Testimony Due to the Opponent's Inability to Afford Rebuttal Evidence | 1 |
| 7 | The Relativity of Reliability | 3 |
| 8 | Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis Evidence: Valid Inference or Ipse Dixit? | 2 |
| 9 | DNA Typing: Emerging or Neglected Issues | 1 |
| 10 | 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? | 1 |
| 11 | Developing a Coherent Theory of the Structure of Federal Rule of Evidence 703 | 0 |
| 12 | 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 | 3 |
| 13 | A Comparativist Critique of the Interface Between Hearsay and Expert Opinion in American Evidence Law | 2 |
| 14 | The Application of the Attorney-Client Privilege to Non-Testifying Experts: Reestablishing the Boundaries Between the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Protection | 1 |
| 15 | The Bases of Expert Testimony: The Syllogistic Structure of Scientific Testimony | 3 |
| 16 | Plan Theory for Admitting Evidence of the Defendant's Uncharged Crimes: A Microcosm of the Flaws in the Uncharged Misconduct Doctrine, The | 1 |
| 17 | The Need to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): The Threat to the Future of the Federal Rules of Evidence | 0 |
| 18 | Uncharged misconduct evidence | 2 |
| 19 | The Standard for Admitting Scientific Evidence: A Critique from the Perspective of Juror Psychology | 12 |
| 20 | A New Era in the Evolution of Scientific Evidence - A Primer on Evaluating the Weight of Scientific Evidence | 6 |
About Edward J. Imwinkelried
Edward J. Imwinkelried is a scholar working on Law, Pharmacy and Political Science and International Relations, having authored 75 papers that have together received 225 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Criminal Law and Evidence (25 papers), Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (21 papers) and Jury Decision Making Processes (18 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Law (63 citations), Medical Terminology (1 citation) and Gender Studies (37 citations). Edward J. Imwinkelried has collaborated with scholars based in United States, Latvia and Canada. Frequent co-authors include John E. B. Myers, Allison D. Redlich, Gail S. Goodman, Jason Luu, David H. Kaye, Paul C. Giannelli, Joseph L. Peterson, William A. Tobin, David L. Faigman and M. Schenk. Their work appears in journals such as Forensic Science International, Behavioral Sciences & the Law and Psychology Public Policy and Law.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.