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 *

295 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11477983)

  • 21. Factors that Influence Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Child Credibility.
    Call AA; Wingrove T
    J Child Sex Abus; 2022; 31(6):726-742. PubMed ID: 35833559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Science in the jury box: jurors' comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence.
    Hans VP; Kaye DH; Dann BM; Farley EJ; Albertson S
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Feb; 35(1):60-71. PubMed ID: 20461543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Gruesome evidence and emotion: anger, blame, and jury decision-making.
    Bright DA; Goodman-Delahunty J
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):183-202. PubMed ID: 16786406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial.
    Golding JM; Bradshaw GS; Dunlap EE; Hodell EC
    Child Maltreat; 2007 May; 12(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 17446571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors' decisions in a murder trial: probative or prejudicial?
    Douglas KS; Lyon DR; Ogloff JR
    Law Hum Behav; 1997 Oct; 21(5):485-501. PubMed ID: 9374603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The Impact of Prior Trial Experience on Mock Jurors' Note Taking During Trials and Recall of Trial Evidence.
    Lorek J; Centifanti LCM; Lyons M; Thorley C
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():47. PubMed ID: 30733695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Can jurors be biased in their evaluation of third-party evidence within cases of rape?
    Parsons A; Mojtahedi D
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2022; 85():101837. PubMed ID: 36122514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Eyewitness confidence and mock juror decisions of guilt: A meta-analytic review.
    Slane CR; Dodson CS
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Feb; 46(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 35073115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Hearsay versus children's testimony: Effects of truthful and deceptive statements on jurors' decisions.
    Goodman GS; Myers JE; Qin J; Quas JA; Castelli P; Redlich AD; Rogers L
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Jun; 30(3):363-401. PubMed ID: 16779675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Juror characteristics on trial: Investigating how psychopathic traits, rape attitudes, victimization experiences, and juror demographics influence decision-making in an intimate partner rape trial.
    Lilley C; Willmott D; Mojtahedi D
    Front Psychiatry; 2022; 13():1086026. PubMed ID: 36727087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The influence of sex on mock jurors' verdicts across type of child abuse cases.
    Pettalia J; Pozzulo JD; Reed J
    Child Abuse Negl; 2017 Jul; 69():1-9. PubMed ID: 28415027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Elder sexual abuse and implicit agism: examining the warm-incompetent bias among mock jurors.
    Syme ML; Cohn TJ
    J Elder Abuse Negl; 2020; 32(1):1-26. PubMed ID: 31760911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Race, witness credibility, and jury deliberation in a simulated drug trafficking trial.
    Shaw EV; Lynch M; Laguna S; Frenda SJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Jun; 45(3):215-228. PubMed ID: 34351204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency.
    MacCoun RJ; Kerr NL
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1988 Jan; 54(1):21-33. PubMed ID: 3346806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: a comparison of students and jurors.
    Reichert J; Miller MK; Bornstein BH; Shelton HD
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):395-418. PubMed ID: 21308752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Victim Impact Statements: How Victim Social Class Affects Juror Decision Making.
    Schweitzer K; Nuñez N
    Violence Vict; 2017 Jun; 32(3):521-532. PubMed ID: 28516855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The bastard verdict and its influence on jurors.
    Curley LJ; MacLean R; Murray J; Laybourn P; Brown D
    Med Sci Law; 2019 Jan; 59(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 30501474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence.
    Najdowski CJ; Bottoms BL; Vargas MC
    Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(3):401-30. PubMed ID: 19391102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.