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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10846377)

  • 1. Permitting jury discussions during trial: impact of the Arizona reform.
    Hannaford PL; Hans VP; Munsterman GT
    Law Hum Behav; 2000 Jun; 24(3):359-82. PubMed ID: 10846377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors' decisions, impressions, and memory.
    Ruva CL; Guenther CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Jun; 39(3):294-310. PubMed ID: 25495716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence.
    London K; Nunez N
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Dec; 85(6):932-9. PubMed ID: 11125657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Should jurors be allowed to discuss trial evidence before deliberation?: New research evidence.
    Kerr NL; Jung J
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Oct; 42(5):413-426. PubMed ID: 30160495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Perspective Differences in Trial Process: A Comparison of Judges, Juries and Litigants.
    Jones AM; Jones SE; Duron A
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2019; 26(1):87-96. PubMed ID: 31984066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Goffman on the jury: real jurors' attention to the "offstage" of trials.
    Rose MR; Diamond SS; Baker KM
    Law Hum Behav; 2010 Aug; 34(4):310-23. PubMed ID: 19728058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Arbitrariness and the death penalty: how the defendant's appearance during trial influences capital jurors' punishment decision.
    Antonio ME
    Behav Sci Law; 2006; 24(2):215-34. PubMed ID: 16557640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Supreme Court examines impact of errors in detecting bias during jury selection.
    Hafemeister TL
    Violence Vict; 2000; 15(2):209-24. PubMed ID: 11108502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Mnemonic Consequences of Jurors' Selective Retrieval During Deliberation.
    Jay ACV; Stone CB; Meksin R; Merck C; Gordon NS; Hirst W
    Top Cogn Sci; 2019 Oct; 11(4):627-643. PubMed ID: 31231981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The role of the radiation safety specialist as witness: risk communication with attorneys, judges, and jurors.
    Johnson RH
    Health Phys; 2001 Dec; 81(6):661-9. PubMed ID: 11725884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process predictors of real jury verdicts.
    Devine DJ; Krouse PC; Cavanaugh CM; Basora JC
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):670-682. PubMed ID: 27598561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Racial bias in decisions made by mock jurors evaluating a case of sexual harassment.
    Wuensch KL; Campbell MW; Kesler FC; Moore CH
    J Soc Psychol; 2002 Oct; 142(5):587-600. PubMed ID: 12236469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Capital jury deliberation: effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination.
    Lynch M; Haney C
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Dec; 33(6):481-96. PubMed ID: 19333746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The impact of individual differences on jurors' note taking during trials and recall of trial evidence, and the association between the type of evidence recalled and verdicts.
    Lorek J; Centifanti LCM; Lyons M; Thorley C
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(2):e0212491. PubMed ID: 30779768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Juror stress.
    Hafemeister TL
    Violence Vict; 1993; 8(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 8193058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The power of meaningful numbers: Attorney guidance and jury deliberation improve the reliability and gist validity of damage awards.
    Reed K; Hans VP; Rotenstein V; Helm RK; Rodriguez A; McKendall P; Reyna VF
    Law Hum Behav; 2024 Apr; 48(2):83-103. PubMed ID: 38602803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Expert evidence, the adversary system, and the jury.
    Vidmar N
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S137-43. PubMed ID: 16030330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effects of judicial admonitions on hearsay evidence.
    Ho Lee D; Krauss DA; Lieberman J
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2005; 28(6):589-603. PubMed ID: 16125775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Informing reform: The views of legal professionals on the unique aspects of Scottish Law.
    Curley LJ; Munro J; Frumkin LA; Turner J
    Med Sci Law; 2021 Oct; 61(4):256-265. PubMed ID: 33596724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Conduct and its consequences: attempts at debiasing jury judgments.
    Smith AC; Greene E
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Oct; 29(5):505-26. PubMed ID: 16254740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.