Thompson, W.C., Vuille, J., Taroni, F., & Biedermann, A. (in press). After Uniqueness: The Evolution of Forensic Science Opinion. Judicature.
Thompson, W.C. (in press). How should forensic scientists present source conclusions. Seton Hall Law Review, 48: __-__.
Thompson, W.C., Grady, R.H., Lai, E. & Stern, H. (in press). Perceived strength of forensic scientists’ reporting statements about source conclusions. Law, Probability & Risk.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis- Latent Fingerprint Examination, (Report prepared by William Thompson, John Black, Anil Jain, and Joseph Kadane), September 2017. DOI: 10.1126/srhrl.aag2874
Morrison, G.S. & Thompson, W.C. (2017). Assessing the admissibility of a new generation of forensic voice comparison testimony. Columbia Science & Technology Law Review, 18: 326-433.
Thompson, W.C., Scurich, N., Dioso-Villa, R., & Velazquez, B. (2017). Evaluating negative forensic evidence: When do jurors treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 14(3): 569-591.
Vuille, J. and Thompson, W.C. (2016). An American Advantage? How American and Swiss Criminal Defense Attorneys Evaluate Forensic DNA Evidence. International Commentary on Evidence, 14: 1-42.
Thompson, W.C. & Newman, E.J. (2015). Lay understanding of forensic statistics: Evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents. Law & Human Behavior. 39(4): 332-349.
Thompson, W.C. (2015). Determining the proper evidentiary basis for an expert opinion: What do experts need to know and when do they know too much? In C. Robertson & A. Kesselheim (Eds.) Blinding as a Solution to Bias: Strengthening Biomedical Science, Forensic Science, and Law. Elsevier, Inc. pp. 133-150.
Thompson, W.C., Vuille, J., Biedermann, A. & Taroni, F. (2013). The role of prior probability in forensic assessments. Frontiers in Genetics, 4: 220-223.
Thompson, W.C., Kaasa, S.O., & Peterson, T. (2013). Do jurors give appropriate weight to forensic identification evidence? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10(2):359-97.
Thompson, W.C. Forensic DNA Evidence: The Myth of Infallibility. In Sheldon Krimsky & Jeremy Gruber (Eds.),Genetic Explanations: Sense and Nonsense. Harvard University Press, 2013, pp. 227-255.
Thompson, W.C. Rejecting the Evidence (Review of David A. Harris, Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science). Science, Jan 4, 2013, v. 339:34-35.
Thompson, W.C., Mueller, L.D., & Krane, D.E. (Dec. 2012). Forensic DNA statistics: Still controversial in some cases. The Champion, 36, 12-23.
Thompson, W.C. (2012). Discussion paper: Hard cases make bad law: Reactions to R v. T. Law, Probability and Risk, 11, 347-359.
Thompson, W.C. (2011). What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 43(2-3): 123-134.
Biedermann, A., Taroni, F. & Thompson, W.C. (2011). Using graphical probability analysis (Bayes nets) to evaluate a conditional DNA inclusion. Law, Probability and Risk, 10, 89-121.
Murphy, E. & Thompson, W.C. (2010). Understanding Potential Errors and Fallacies in
Forensic DNA Statistics: An Amicus Brief in McDaniel v. Brown. Criminal Law Bulletin, 46(4), 709-757.
Thompson, W.C. (2009). The National Research Council’s plan to strengthen forensic science: Does the path forward run through the courts? Jurimetrics Journal, 50, 35–51.
Krane, D. et al. Time for DNA Disclosure. Science, 326, 1631-32 (Dec. 18, 2009).
Thompson, W.C. (2009). Painting the target around the matching profile: The Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation. Law, Probability and Risk, 8, 257-276.
Thompson W.C., (2009). Interpretation: Observer Effects, in Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, Jamieson, A., Moenssens, A. (eds). John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK, pp 1575-1579.
Thompson, W.C. (2008). Beyond bad apples: Analyzing the role of forensic science in wrongful convictions. Southwestern Law Review, 37(4), 1027-1050.
Thompson, W.C. & Dioso-Villa, R. (2008). Turning a blind eye to misleading scientific testimony: Failure of procedural safeguards in a capital case. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 18, 151-204.
Kaasa, S.O., Peterson, T., Morris, E.K., & Thompson, W.C. (2007). Statistical inference and forensic evidence: Evaluating a bullet lead match. Law & Human Behavior, 31(5), 433-44.
Thompson, W.C. (2005) Analyzing the relevance and admissibility of bullet-lead evidence: Did the NRC report miss the target? Jurimetrics, 46, 65-89.
Quas, J.A., Thompson, W.C., & Clarke-Stewart, C.K.A. (2005) Do jurors “know” what isn’t so about child witnesses?Law and Human Behavior, 29, 425 : 456.
Thompson, W.C., Taroni, F. & Aitken, C.G.G. (2003). How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(1), 47-54.
Risinger, D.M., Saks, M.J., Thompson, W.C. & Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 90(1), 1-56.
Thompson, W.C. & Pathak, M.K. (1999). Empirical Study of Hearsay Rules: Bridging the Gap Between Psychology and Law. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5(2), 456-472 (1999).
Thompson, W.C., Clarke-Stewart, K.A., & Lepore, S.J. (1997). What did the janitor do? Suggestive interviewing and the accuracy of children’s accounts, Law & Human Behavior, 21(4), 405-426.
Thompson, W.C. A Sociological Perspective on the Science of Forensic DNA Testing. U.C. Davis Law Review , 30(4) 1113-1136 (1997).
Thompson, W.C. DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial, Colorado Law Review , 67 (4), 827-857 (1996).
Thompson, W.C. Subjective interpretation, laboratory error and the value of DNA evidence: Three case studies,Genetica , 96: 153-168 (1995).
Thompson, W.C. Evaluating the admissibility of new genetic identification tests: Lessons from the “DNA War”. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 84, 22-104 (1993).
Thompson, W.C. & Ford, S. DNA typing: Acceptance and weight of the new genetic identification tests. Virginia Law Review, 1989, 75, 45-108.
Thompson, W.C. Death qualification after Wainwright v. Witt and Lockhart v. McCree. Law and Human Behavior , 1989, 13, 185-215.
Thompson, W.C. & Schumann, E.L. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy. Law and Human Behavior , 1987, 11, 167-187.