Abegg, J., ‘Betrachtungen über das Gesetz betreffend das Verfahren in den bei dem Kammergerichte und dem Criminalgerichte zu Berlin zu führenden Untersuchungen, vom 17. Juli 1846’, Archiv des Criminalrechts, Neue Folge, 14 (1847), 103–35 and 155–87.Google Scholar

Allen, R. J., ‘Structuring Jury Decisionmaking in Criminal Cases: A Unified Constitutional Approach to Evidentiary Devices’, Harvard Law Review, 94 (1980), 321–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, R. J. and Laudan, L., ‘Deadly Dilemmas’, Texas Tech Law Review, 41 (2008), 65–92.Google Scholar

Allen, R. J. and Pardo, M. S., ‘Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation’, Law & Philosophy, 27 (2007), 223–68.Google Scholar

Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, Vol. III: International Criminal Procedure, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2025).Google Scholar

Atiq, E. H., ‘Reasonable Moral Doubt’, New York University Law Review, 97 (2022), 1373–425.Google Scholar

Barkow, R. E., ‘Recharging the Jury: The Criminal Jury’s Constitutional Role in an Era of Mandatory Sentencing’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 152 (2003), 33–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baur, A., ‘Die tatrichterliche Überzeugung’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 14 (2019), 119–29.Google Scholar

Blackstone, W., Commentaries on the Laws of England, Claredon Press (1765–69).Google Scholar

Carter, L. E., ‘A Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard in Death Penalty Proceedings: A Neglected Element of Fairness’, Ohio State Law Journal, 52 (1991), 195–221.Google Scholar

Damaška, M., Evidence Law Adrift, Yale University Press (1997).Google Scholar

Damaška, M., Evaluation of Evidence, Cambridge University Press (2019) (Kindle Version).Google Scholar

Eisenberg, U., Beweisrecht der StPO, 10th edn, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar

Epps, D., ‘The Consequences of Error in Criminal Justice’, Harvard Law Review, 128 (2015), 1065–151.Google Scholar

Feuerbach, P. J. A., Betrachtungen über das Geschwornen-Gericht, Philipp Krüll: Universitätsbuchhändler (1813).Google Scholar

Feuerbach, P. J. A., Betrachtungen über die Öffentlichkeit und Mündlichkeit der Gerechtigkeitspflege, Vol. II: Über die Gerichtsverfassung und das gerichtliche Verfahren Frankreichs, Georg Friedrich Heyer (1825).Google Scholar

Fezer, G., ‘Tatrichterlicher Erkenntnisprozeß – “Freiheit” der “Beweiswürdigung”’, Strafverteidiger, 15 (1995), 95–101.Google Scholar

Franke, U., ‘§ 337 StPO’, in Erb, V., Esser, R., Franke, U. et al. (eds.), Löwe Rosenberg, Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Vol. VII/2: §§ 312–373a, 26th edn, De Gruyter (2013), 306–98.Google Scholar

Franklin, J. The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability before Pascal, Johns Hopkins University Press (2001).Google Scholar

Frisch, W., ‘Beweiswürdigung und richterliche Überzeugung’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 11 (2016), 707–14.Google Scholar

Frister, H., ‘Persönliche Gewißheit als Verurteilungsvoraussetzung im Strafprozeß’, in Samson, E., Dencker, F., Frisch, P. et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Gerald Grünwald, Nomos (1999), 169–96.Google Scholar

Gardiner, G., ‘In Defence of Reasonable Doubt’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34 (2016), 221–41.Google Scholar

Glaser, J., Beiträge zur Lehre vom Beweis im Strafprozess, Duncker & Humblot (1883).Google Scholar

Hoyer, A., ‘Der Konflikt zwischen richterlicher Beweiswürdigungsfreiheit und dem Prinzip “in dubio pro reo”’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 105 (1993), 523–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ignor, A., Geschichte des Strafprozesses in Deutschland 1532–1846, Ferdinand Schöningh (2002).Google Scholar

Iontcheva, J., ‘Jury Sentencing as Democratic Practice’, Virginia Law Review, 89 (2003), 311–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jarcke, C. E., ‘Bemerkungen über die Lehre vom unvollständigen Beweise, vornehmlich in Bezug auf die außerordentlichen Strafen’, Neues Archiv des Criminalrechts, 8 (1826), 97–144.Google Scholar

Jeffries, J. C. and Stephan, P. B., ‘Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law’, Yale Law Journal, 88 (1979), 1325–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jerouschek, G., ‘Wie frei ist die freie Beweiswürdigung?’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrech, 139 (1992), 493–515.Google Scholar

Johnson King, Z. A., ‘The Trouble with Standards of Proof’, Synthese, 199 (2021), 141–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jung H., ‘Mittermaiers “Die Lehre vom Beweise”. Eine Station auf dem Weg von der gesetzlichen Beweistheorie zum Grundsatz der freien Beweiswürdigung?’, in Koch A., Stuckenberg C. F. and Wohlers W. (eds.), Carl Joseph Anton Mittermaier und der reformierte Strafprozess, Mohr Siebeck (2022), 211–28.Google Scholar

King, N., ‘Juror Delinquency in Criminal Trials in America, 1796–1996’, Michigan Law Review, 94 (1996), 2673–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Knauer, C. and Kudlich, H., ‘§ 337 StPO’, in Knauer, C. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 1st edn, C. H. Beck (2019), Vol. III/1.Google Scholar

Kunz, K.-L., ‘Tatbeweis jenseits eines vernünftigen Zweifels’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 121 (2009), 572–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Küper, W., Die Richteridee der Strafprozessordnung und ihre geschichtlichen Grundlagen, De Gruyter (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, P., ‘Schwurgerichte und Schöffengerichte in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert bis 1870’, in Padoa Schioppa, A. (ed.), The Trial Jury in England, France, Germany 1700–1900, Duncker & Humblot (1987), 241–304.Google Scholar

Laudan, L., ‘Is Reasonable Doubt Reasonable?’, Legal Theory, 9 (2003), 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laudan, L., Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology, Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law, Cambridge University Press (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laudan, L., ‘The Rules of Trial, Political Morality and the Costs of Error: Or, Is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Doing More Harm than Good?’, in Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (2011), Vol. 1, 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, Y., ‘Deontology, Political Morality, and the State’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 8 (2011), 385–402.Google Scholar

Lee, Y., ‘Reasonable Doubt and Moral Elements’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 105 (2015), 1–37.Google Scholar

Lichtenberg, J., ‘Moral Certainty’, Philosophy, 69 (1994), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miebach, K., ‘§ 261 StPO’, in Schneider, H. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, Vol. II: §§ 151–332 StPO, 1st edn, C. H. Beck (2016), 1597–758.Google Scholar

Mittermaier, C. J. A., ‘Die gesetzliche Beweistheorie in ihrem Verhältniß zu Geschwornengerichten’, Neues Archiv des Criminalrechts, 12 (1832), 488–518; Neues Archiv des Criminalrechts, 13 (1833), 120–40; and Neues Archiv des Criminalrechts, 13 (1833), 280–303.Google Scholar

Mittermaier, C. J. A.Die Lehre vom Beweise im deutschen Strafprozesse nach Fortbildung durch Gerichtsgebrauch und deutsche Gesetzbücher in Vergleichung mit den Ansichten des englischen und französischen Strafverfahrens, Johann Wilhelm Heyer (1834).Google Scholar

Mittermaier, C. J. A., Die Mündlichkeit, das Anklageprinzip, die Oeffentlichkeit und das Geschwornengericht in ihrer Durchführung in den verschiedenen Gesetzgebungen dargestellt und nach den Forderungen des Rechts und der Zweckmäßigkeit mit Rücksicht auf die Erfahrungen der verschiedenen Länder geprüft, J. G. Cotta’scher Verlag (1845).Google Scholar

Mittermaier, C. J. A., Il Processo orale accusatorio e per giurati secondo le varie legislazioni, Stefano Calderini e comp. – Nicola Zanichelli e comp. (1851).Google Scholar

Mittermaier, C. J. A., Teoria della prova nel processo penale, Libreria di Francesco Sanvito (1858).Google Scholar

Newman, J. O., ‘Beyond “Reasonable Doubt”’, New York University Law Review, 68 (1993), 979–1002.Google Scholar

Nieva-Fenoll, J., ‘Beweislast und Beweismaß’, Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 134 (2021), 41–65.Google Scholar

Nobili, M., Die freie richterliche Überzeugungsbildung, Nomos (2001).Google Scholar

Paulus, R., ‘Strafprozessuale Beweisstrukturen’, in Weßlau, E. and Wohlers, W. (eds.), Festschrift für Gerhard Fezer, De Gruyter Recht (2008), 243–65.Google Scholar

Picinali, F., ‘Can the Reasonable Doubt Standard Be Justified? A Reconstructed Dialogue’, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 31 (2018), 364–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, P., Roberts and Zuckerman’s Criminal Evidence, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press (2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roxin, C. and Greco, L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Vol. I: Grundlagen, Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, 5th edn, C. H. Beck (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sander, G. M., ‘§ 261 StPO’, in Becker, J.-P., Erb, V., Esser, R. et al. (eds.), Löwe Rosenberg, Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Vol. VII: §§ 256–95, 27th edn, De Gruyter (2021), 216–393.Google Scholar

Sarstedt, W., ‘Beweisregeln im Strafprozeß’, in Berliner Festschrift für Ernst E. Hirsch, Duncker & Humblot (1968), 171–86.Google Scholar

Schäfer, G., Sander, G. M. and van Gemmeren, G., Praxis der Strafzumessung, 6th edn, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar

Schauer, F. and Zeckhauser, R., ‘On the Degree of Confidence for Adverse Decisions’, Journal of Legal Studies, 25 (1996), 27–52.Google Scholar

Schmitt, B., Die richterliche Beweiswürdigung im Strafprozeß, Verlag Max Schmidt-Römhild (1992).Google Scholar

Schubert, W. and von Savigny, F. C., Die Prinzipienfragen in Beziehung auf eine neue Strafprozeß-Ordnung, Peter Lang (2011).Google Scholar

Schulz, J., ‘Mittermaier und die freie Beweiswürdigung’, in Küper, W. (ed.), Carl Joseph Anton Mittermaier, R. v. Decker and C. F. Müller (1988), 139–48.Google Scholar

Shapiro, B. J., ‘“To a Moral Certainty”: Theories of Knowledge and Anglo-American Juries 1600–1850’, Hastings Law Journal, 38 (1986), 153–93.Google Scholar

Shapiro, B. J., ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ and ‘Probable Cause’: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence, University of California Press (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapiro, B. J., ‘The Beyond Reasonable Doubt Doctrine: “Moral Comfort” or Standard of Proof?’, Law & Humanities, 2 (2008), 149–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapiro, B. J., ‘Changing Language, Unchanging Standard: From “Satisfied Conscience” to “Moral Certainty” and “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”’, Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review, 17 (2009), 261–79.Google Scholar

Shapiro, B. J., ‘“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”: The Neglected Eighteenth-Century Context’, Law & Humanities, 8 (2014), 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sheppard, S., ‘The Metamorphoses of Reasonable Doubt: How Changes in the Burden of Proof Have Weakened the Presumption of Innocence’, Notre Dame Law Review, 78 (2003), 1170–241.Google Scholar

Solan, L. M., ‘Refocusing the Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: Some Doubt about Reasonable Doubt’, Texas Law Review, 78 (1999), 105–47.Google Scholar

Sousa Mendes P., ‘Beweismaß und Wahrscheinlichkeit: eine rechtsvergleichende Betrachtung’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 166 (2019), 369–84.Google Scholar

Spottswood, M., ‘The Hidden Structure of Fact-Finding’, Case Western Reserve Law Review, 64 (2013), 131–200.Google Scholar

Sternberg-Lieben, D. and Schuster, F., ‘§ 15 StGB’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019), 247–338.Google Scholar

Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘§ 261 StPO’, in von Heintschel-Heinegg, B. and Bockemühl, J. (eds.), Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, Carl Heymanns Verlag (2013), 1–102.Google Scholar

Taruffo, M., ‘Rethinking the Standards of Proof’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 51 (2003), 659–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tetlow, T., ‘Discriminatory Acquittal’, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 18 (2009), 75–129.Google Scholar

Thaman, S. C. and Brodowski, D., ‘Exclusion or Non-Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Criminal Process: Focus on Common Law and German Approaches’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. I, 428–58.Google Scholar

Tribe, L., ‘Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process’, Harvard Law Review, 84 (1971), 1329–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Underwood, B. D., ‘The Thumb on the Scales of Justice: Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Cases’, Yale Law Journal, 86 (1977), 1299–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Velten, P., ‘§ 261 StPO’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 5th edn, Carl Heymanns Verlag (2016), Vol. V, 1–122.Google Scholar

von Justi, J. H. G., ‘Anzeigung derjenigen Mängel unserer peinlichen Rechte, die aus einigen gemeinen Lehren der Rechtsgelehrten von dem Corpore delicti entspringen’, in Historische und juristische Schriften, Johann Gottlieb Garbe (1760), Vol. I, 350–400.Google Scholar

Walen, A., ‘Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: A Balanced Retributive Account’, Louisiana Law Review, 76 (2015), 355–446.Google Scholar

Walter, G., Freie Beweiswürdigung, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) (1979).Google Scholar

Walter, T., ‘Die Beweislast im Strafprozeß’, JZ, 61 (2006), 340–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitman, J. Q., The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial, Yale University Press (2008).Google Scholar

Allen, R. J., Luttrell, M. and Kreeger, A., ‘Clarifying Entrapment’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 89 (1999), 407–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code & Commentaries, American Law Institute (1985).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., ‘Should the Police Be Allowed to Use Deceptive Practices?’, Law Quarterly Review, 114 (1998), 108–40.Google Scholar

Aziz, S. F., ‘Race, Entrapment, and Manufacturing “Homegrown Terrorism”’, Georgetown Law Journal, 111 (2023), 381–463.Google Scholar

Baldwin, J., ‘Police Interview Techniques: Establishing Truth or Proof?’, British Journal of Criminology, 33 (1993), 325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bezemek, C., ‘Nemo tenetur – Ein grundrechtlicher Aufriss’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 132–42.Google Scholar

Birch, D., ‘Excluding Evidence from Entrapment: What Is a “Fair Cop”?’, Current Legal Problems, 47 (1994), 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloom, R. M. and Fentin, D. H., ‘“A More Majestic Conception”: The Importance of Judicial Integrity in Preserving the Exclusionary Rule’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 13 (2010), 47–80.Google Scholar

Bock, S., ‘Viel Lärm um Nichts? Kritische Überlegungen zum Mehrwert der EU-Richtlinie über die Unschuldsvermutung’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 189–96.Google Scholar

Brodowski, D., Verdeckte technische Überwachungsmaßnahmen, Mohr Siebeck (2016).Google Scholar

Bundesministerium der Justiz, ‘Gesetzes zur Regelung des Einsatzes von Verdeckten Ermittlern und Vertrauenspersonen sowie zur Tatprovokation’ (19 December 2023), available at www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/DE/2023_V-Personen.html.Google Scholar

Celiksoy, E., ‘Overruling “the Salduz Doctrine” in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s Further Retreat from the Salduz Principles on the Right to Access to Lawyer’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 10 (2019), 342–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chevigny, P., Edge of the Knife: Police Violence in the Americas, The New Press (1995).Google Scholar

Choo, A. L.-T., Abuse of Process and Judicial Stays of Criminal Proceedings, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Choo, A. L.-T. and Nash, S., ‘What’s Wrong with Section 78?’, Criminal Law Review, [1999], 929–40.Google Scholar

College of Policing, ‘Investigation – Investigative Interviewing’, available at www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/investigative-interviewing/#peace-framework.Google Scholar

Damaška, M. R., The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process, Yale University Press (1986).Google Scholar

Dennis, I. H., ‘Miscarriages of Justice and the Law of Confessions: Evidentiary Issues and Solutions’, Public Law, [1993], 291–313.Google Scholar

Diehl, J., Lehberger, R. and Schmid, F., ‘Justizministerium treibt neues V-Mann-Gesetz voran’, SPIEGEL online, 19 July 2023, available at www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/v-leute-justizministerium-treibt-neues-gesetz-fuer-polizei-voran-a-1dd7d0d8-e2cb-4b49-9c57-ec20dcfa3d14.Google Scholar

Diemer, H., ‘§ 136a StPO’, in Barthe, C. and Gericke, J. (eds.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung mit GVG, EGGVG und EMRK, 9th edn, C. H. Beck (2023).Google Scholar

Dilloff, A. M., ‘Unraveling Unlawful Entrapment’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 94 (2004), 827–96.Google Scholar

Dixon, D., Law in Policing, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar

Dixon, D., ‘Integrity, Interrogation and Criminal Injustice’, in Hunter, J., Roberts, P., Young, S. N. M. et al. (eds.), The Integrity of Criminal Process, Hart (2016), 75–97.Google Scholar

du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Participation in Crime’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 94–134.Google Scholar

Duff, A., ‘Authority and Responsibility in International Criminal Law’, in Besson, S. and Tasioulas, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law, Oxford University Press (2010), 589–604.Google Scholar

Dworkin, G., ‘The Serpent Beguiled Me and I Did Eat: Entrapment and the Creation of Crime’, Law and Philosophy, 4 (1985), 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dyson, M. and Meyer, F., ‘Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2022), Vol. II, 13–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Emsley, C., The English Police: A Political and Social History, 2nd edn, Longman (1996).Google Scholar

Eschelbach, R., ‘§ 136a StPO’, in Satzger, H. and Schluckebier, W. (eds.), Satzger · Schluckebier · Widmaier, Strafprozessordnung. Mit GVG und EMRK. Kommentar, 5th edn, Wolters Kluwer (2020).Google Scholar

Etienne, M. and McAdams, R., ‘Police Deception in Interrogation as a Problem of Procedural Legitimacy’, Texas Tech Law Review, 54 (2021), 21–38.Google Scholar

Flanagan, O., The Geography of Morals, Oxford University Press (2017).Google Scholar

Frampton, T. W., ‘Predisposition and Positivism: The Forgotten Foundations of the Entrapment Doctrine’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 103 (2013), 111–46.Google Scholar

Gudjonsson, G. H., ‘Investigative Interviewing’, in Newburn, T., Williamson, T. and Wright, A. (eds.), Handbook of Criminal Investigation, Willan Publishing (2007), 466–92.Google Scholar

Harris, D. A., ‘“Driving While Black” and All Other Traffic Offenses: The Supreme Court and Pretextual Traffic Stops’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87 (1997), 544–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hodgen, G. G., ‘Resuscitating the Entrapment Defense: A Statutory Approach’, Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 55 (2021), 103–43.Google Scholar

Hodgson, J., ‘Hierarchy, Bureaucracy, and Ideology in French Criminal Justice: Some Empirical Observations’, Journal of Law and Society, 29 (2002), 227–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hong, M., ‘Nemo-tenetur-Grundsatz und Menschenwürde: Zum Menschenwürdekern der Selbstbelastungsfreiheit’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 143–5.Google Scholar

Hritz, A. C., ‘“Voluntariness with a Vengeance”: The Coerciveness of Police Lies in Interrogations’, Cornell Law Review, 102 (2017), 487–511.Google Scholar

Hübner, Y., Rechtsstaatswidrig, aber straflos? Nomos (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackson, J. D., ‘Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition, Change and the Need for Effective Defence’, Modern Law Review, 79 (2016), 987–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jahn, M., Gazeas, N. and Hübner, Y., ‘Rechtssicherheit beim Einsatz von Vertrauenspersonen und rechtsstaatskonformes Verbot der Tatprovokation: Ein Regelungsvorschlag’, Strafverteidiger, 43 (2023), 414–21.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T. et al., ‘Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendations’, Law & Human Behavior, 34 (2010), 3–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kerr, O. S., ‘Four Models of Fourth Amendment Protection’, Stanford Law Review, 60 (2007), 503–51.Google Scholar

King, N. J., Kerr, O. S. and Brensike Primus, E., ‘Conduct of the Police’, in Kamisar, LaFave and Israel’s Criminal Procedure: Investigation, 16th edn, West Academic (2023).Google Scholar

Langer, M., ‘From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure’, Harvard International Law Journal, 45 (2004), 1–64.Google Scholar

Magid, L., ‘Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?’, Michigan Law Review, 99 (2001), 1168–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malek, K., ‘Abschied von der Wahrheitssuche: Eröffnungsvortrag zum 35’, Strafverteidigertag (2011), available at https://strafverteidigertag.de/rechtspolitik/grundlagen/abschied-von-der-wahrheitssuche/.Google Scholar

Marcus, P., The Entrapment Defense, 5th edn, LexisNexis (2023).Google Scholar

Marston, G., ‘The United Kingdom’s Part in the Preparation of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950’, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 42 (1993), 796–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marx, G. T. and Fijnaut, C. (eds.), Undercover: Police Surveillance in Comparative Perspective, Martinus Nijhoff (1995).Google Scholar

Mawby, R. I., Policing across the World: Issues for the Twenty-First Century, UCL Press (1999).Google Scholar

McAdams, R. H., ‘The Political Economy of Entrapment’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96 (2005), 107–86.Google Scholar

McCartney, C. and Wortley, N., ‘Under the Covers: Covert Policing and Intimate Relationships’, Criminal Law Review, [2018], 137–56.Google Scholar

Menlowe, M. A., ‘Bentham, Self-Incrimination and the Law of Evidence’, Law Quarterly Review, 104 (1988), 286–307.Google Scholar

Mirfield, P., Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar

Müller, A. Th., ‘Die Richtlinie (EU) 2016/343 und der nemo-tenetur-Grundsatz im Unionsrecht’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 180–8.Google Scholar

Murphy, B. and Anderson, J., ‘Confessions to Mr Big: A New Rule of Evidence?’, International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 20 (2016), 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murschetz, V., ‘Der nemo-tenetur-Grundsatz im US-amerikanischen Recht’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 164–8.Google Scholar

Norris, J. J., ‘Accounting for the (Almost Complete) Failure of the Entrapment Defense in Post-9/11 US Terrorism Cases’, Law & Social Inquiry, 45 (2020), 194–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ognall, H., A Life of Crime: The Memoirs of a High Court Judge, William Collins (2017).Google Scholar

Ormerod, D., ‘Recent Developments in Entrapment’, Covert Policing Review (2006), 65–86.Google Scholar

Ormerod, D. and Birch, D., ‘The Evolution of the Discretionary Exclusion of Evidence’, Criminal Law Review, [2004], 767–88.Google Scholar

Ormerod, D. and Roberts, A., ‘The Trouble with Teixeira: Developing a Principled Approach to Entrapment’, International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 6 (2002), 38–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Øyen, Ø., Straffeprosess, 3rd edn, Fagbokforlaget (2022).Google Scholar

Poyser, S. and Milne, R. J., ‘No Grounds for Complacency and Plenty for Continued Vigilance: Miscarriages of Justice as Drivers for Research on Reforming the Investigative Interviewing Process’, Police Journal, 88 (2015), 265–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quirk, H., The Rise and Fall of the Right of Silence, Routledge (2017).Google Scholar

Redmayne, M., ‘Exploring Entrapment’, in Zedner, L. and Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (2012), 157–70.Google Scholar

Reiner, R., ‘The Organization and Accountability of the Police’, in McConville, M. and Wilson, G. (eds.), The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process, Oxford University Press (2002), 21–42.Google Scholar

Roberts, P., ‘Normative Evolution in Evidentiary Exclusion: Coercion, Deception and the Right to a Fair Trial’, in Roberts, P. and Hunter, J. (eds.), Criminal Evidence and Human Rights, Hart (2012), 163–93.Google Scholar

Rogall, K., ‘§ 136a StPO’, in Wolter, J. and Deiters, M. (eds.), SK-StPO. Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung. Mit GVG und EMRK, Vol. II: §§ 94–136a StPO, 6th edn, Wolters Kluwer (2023).Google Scholar

Roiphe, R., ‘The Serpent Beguiled Me: A History of the Entrapment Defense’, Seton Hall Law Review, 33 (2003), 257–302.Google Scholar

Roth, J. A., ‘The Anomaly of Entrapment’, Washington University Law Review, 91 (2014), 979–1034.Google Scholar

Schuhr, J., ‘§ 136a StPO’, in Kudlich, H. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, Vol. I: §§ 1–150 StPO, 2nd edn, C. H. Beck (2023).Google Scholar

Seidman, L. M., ‘The Supreme Court, Entrapment, and Our Criminal Justice Dilemma’, Supreme Court Review, [1981], 111–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simester, A. P., Fundamentals of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simon-Kerr, J., ‘Public Trust and Police Deception’, Northeastern University Law Review, 11 (2019), 625–93.Google Scholar

Slobogin, C., ‘Deceit, Pretext, and Trickery: Investigative Lies by the Police’, Oregon Law Review, 76 (1997), 775–816.Google Scholar

Soukara, S., Bull, R., Vrij, A. et al., ‘What Really Happens in Police Interviews of Suspects? Tactics and Confessions’, Psychology, Crime & Law, 15 (2009), 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Staffler, L., ‘Der nemo-tenetur-Grundsatz im schweizerischen Strafverfahrensrecht – für natürliche und juristische Personen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 169–75.Google Scholar

Stuntz, W. J., ‘Lawyers, Deception, and Evidence Gathering’, Virginia Law Review, 79 (1993), 1903–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sukumar, D., Hodgson, J. S. and Wade, K. A., ‘Behind Closed Doors: Live Observations of Current Police Station Disclosure Practices and Lawyer–Client Consultations’, Criminal Law Review, [2016], 900–14.Google Scholar

Summers, R. S., ‘Evaluating and Improving Legal Processes: A Plea for “Process Values”’, Cornell Law Review, 60 (1974), 1–52.Google Scholar

Thaman, S. C. and Brodowski, D., ‘Exclusion or Non-Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Criminal Process: Focus on Common Law and German Approaches’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 428–62.Google Scholar

Turner, J. I. and Weigend, T., ‘Negotiated Case Dispositions in Germany, England and the United States’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 389–427.Google Scholar

van Kessel, G., ‘Adversary Excesses in the American Criminal Trial’, Notre Dame Law Review, 67 (1992), 403–551.Google Scholar

Venier, A., ‘Verbotener Zwang zur Selbstbelastung, Aussagefreiheit und angemessene Verteidigung aus der Sicht des österreichischen Strafprozessrechts’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 176–9.Google Scholar

Volk, K. and Engländer, A., Grundkurs StPO, 10th edn, C. H. Beck (2021).Google Scholar

Waldron, J., ‘Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11 (2003), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walker, C., ‘Miscarriages of Justice in Principle and Practice’, in Walker, C. and Starmer, K. (eds.), Miscarriages of Justice: A Review of Justice in Error, Blackstone (1999), 31–62.Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Should We Search for the Truth, and Who Should Do It?’, North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, 36 (2011), 389–415.Google Scholar

Wilder, M., ‘“Lizzie”: The Yard’s Undercover Love-Bait’, Daily Mail, 15 September 1994.Google Scholar

Winn, P., ‘Katz and the Origins of the “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” Test’, McGeorge Law Review, 40 (2009), 1–12.Google Scholar

Young, D., ‘Unnecessary Evil: Police Lying in Interrogations’, Connecticut Law Review, 28 (1996), 425–78.Google Scholar

Zedner, L. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Due Process’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 304–42.Google Scholar

Zupancic, B. M., ‘The Crown and the Criminal: The Privilege against Self-Incrimination: Towards General Principles of Criminal Procedure’, Nottingham Law Journal, 5 (1996), 32–55.Google Scholar