These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10380417)

  • 1. Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.
    Kovera MB; McAuliff BD; Hebert KS
    J Appl Psychol; 1999 Jun; 84(3):362-75. PubMed ID: 10380417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis.
    Kovera MB; Gresham AW; Borgida E; Gray E; Regan PC
    J Appl Psychol; 1997 Feb; 82(1):178-91. PubMed ID: 9119796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Improving juror assessments of forensic testimony and its effects on decision-making and evidence evaluation.
    LaBat DE; Goldfarb D; Evans JR; Compo NS; Koolmees CJ; LaPorte G; Lothridge K
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Oct; 47(5):566-578. PubMed ID: 37603005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence.
    Chorn JA; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Dec; 43(6):542-557. PubMed ID: 31524421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments.
    Devenport JL; Cutler BL
    Law Hum Behav; 2004 Oct; 28(5):569-76. PubMed ID: 15638210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony.
    Eastwood J; Caldwell J
    J Forensic Sci; 2015 Nov; 60(6):1523-8. PubMed ID: 26234166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert.
    Cooper J; Hall J
    Behav Sci Law; 2000; 18(6):719-29. PubMed ID: 11180418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Expert testimony influences juror decisions in criminal trials involving recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.
    Khurshid A; Jacquin KM
    J Child Sex Abus; 2013; 22(8):949-67. PubMed ID: 24283545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.
    Levett LM; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Aug; 32(4):363-74. PubMed ID: 17940854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Expert witness testimony: rules of engagement.
    Satiani B
    Vasc Endovascular Surg; 2006; 40(3):223-7. PubMed ID: 16703210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence.
    Younan M; Martire KA
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():785677. PubMed ID: 35002877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Expert witness confidence and juror personality: their impact on credibility and persuasion in the courtroom.
    Cramer RJ; Brodsky SL; DeCoster J
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(1):63-74. PubMed ID: 19297636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases.
    Krauss DA; Lieberman JD; Olson J
    Behav Sci Law; 2004; 22(6):801-22. PubMed ID: 15568199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions.
    Corwin EP; Cramer RJ; Griffin DA; Brodsky SL
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 22396340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Secondary confessions: the influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors' perceptions of informant testimony.
    Maeder EM; Pica E
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Dec; 38(6):560-8. PubMed ID: 25180762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Thin slice expert testimony and mock trial deliberations.
    Parrott CT; Brodsky SL; Wilson JK
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():67-74. PubMed ID: 26346686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors' Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence.
    Thompson WC; Scurich N
    J Forensic Sci; 2019 Sep; 64(5):1379-1388. PubMed ID: 30791101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making.
    Curley LJ; Munro J; Dror IE
    Med Sci Law; 2022 Jul; 62(3):206-215. PubMed ID: 35175157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials.
    Butler B; Moran G
    Behav Sci Law; 2007; 25(4):561-71. PubMed ID: 17440900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Juror and expert conceptions of battered women.
    Dodge M; Greene E
    Violence Vict; 1991; 6(4):271-82. PubMed ID: 1822697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.