187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10810841)
1. The bottom line: the effect of written expert witness statements on juror verdicts and information processing.
ForsterLee L; Horowitz I; Athaide-Victor E; Brown N
Law Hum Behav; 2000 Apr; 24(2):259-70. PubMed ID: 10810841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Jurors' perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility.
McCarthy Wilcox A; NicDaeid N
Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Oct; 291():100-108. PubMed ID: 30216840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mock jurors' evaluation of firearm examiner testimony.
Garrett BL; Scurich N; Crozier WE
Law Hum Behav; 2020 Oct; 44(5):412-423. PubMed ID: 33090867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effects of complexity on jurors' verdicts and construction of evidence.
Horowitz IA; Bordens KS; Victor E; Bourgeois MJ; ForsterLee L
J Appl Psychol; 2001 Aug; 86(4):641-52. PubMed ID: 11519648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: it depends on the sample.
McCabe JG; Krauss DA
Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):331-57. PubMed ID: 21766326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Credibility in the courtroom: how likeable should an expert witness be?
Brodsky SL; Neal TM; Cramer RJ; Ziemke MH
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):525-32. PubMed ID: 20019000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Expert testimony regarding child witnesses: does it sensitize jurors to forensic interview quality?
Buck JA; London K; Wright DB
Law Hum Behav; 2011 Apr; 35(2):152-64. PubMed ID: 20443056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Expert testimony in capital sentencing: juror responses.
Montgomery JH; Ciccone JR; Garvey SP; Eisenberg T
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2005; 33(4):509-18. PubMed ID: 16394228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
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. 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]
17. Mock juror perception of sexual assault nurse examiner testimony.
Wasarhaley NE; Simcic TA; Golding JM
Violence Vict; 2012; 27(4):500-11. PubMed ID: 22978071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Battered women who kill: the impact of expert testimony and empathy induction in the courtroom.
Plumm KM; Terrance CA
Violence Against Women; 2009 Feb; 15(2):186-205. PubMed ID: 19126834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Jurors' views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials.
Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Turner DB
Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(4):483-95. PubMed ID: 25043830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures.
Devenport JL; Stinson V; Cutler BL; Kravitz DA
J Appl Psychol; 2002 Dec; 87(6):1042-54. PubMed ID: 12558212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
