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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11501437)

  • 1. What makes recovered-memory testimony compelling to jurors?
    Coleman BL; Stevens MJ; Reeder GD
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Aug; 25(4):317-38. PubMed ID: 11501437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The credibility of recovered memory testimony: exploring the effects of alleged victim and perpetrator gender.
    Bornstein BH; Muller SL
    Child Abuse Negl; 2001 Nov; 25(11):1415-26. PubMed ID: 11766008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Investigating the Role of Delayed Disclosure and Relationship to the Perpetrator.
    Miller QC; Call AA; London K
    J Interpers Violence; 2022 Dec; 37(23-24):NP23374-NP23396. PubMed ID: 35285346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. White mock jurors' moral emotional responses to viewing female victim photographs depend on the victim's race.
    Phalen HJ; Salerno JM; Adamoli M; Nadler J
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Dec; 47(6):666-685. PubMed ID: 38127550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effect of multiple childhood sexual assaults on mock-jurors' perceptions of repressed memories.
    Golding JM; Sego SA; Sanchez RP
    Behav Sci Law; 1999; 17(4):483-93. PubMed ID: 10653996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Potential jurors' opinions on the effects of hypnosis on eyewitness identification: a brief communication.
    Labelle L; Lamarche MC; Laurence JR
    Int J Clin Exp Hypn; 1990 Oct; 38(4):315-9. PubMed ID: 2258247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The effect of hypnotically elicited testimony on jurors' judgments of guilt and innocence.
    Wagstaff GF; Vella M; Perfect T
    J Soc Psychol; 1992 Oct; 132(5):591-5. PubMed ID: 1453692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. When will a child be believed? The impact of the victim's age and juror's gender on children's credibility and verdict in a sexual-abuse case.
    McCauley MR; Parker JF
    Child Abuse Negl; 2001 Apr; 25(4):523-39. PubMed ID: 11370724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors' guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation.
    Ruva CL; Guenther CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Oct; 41(5):478-493. PubMed ID: 28714733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Jurors' reactions to satanic ritual abuse allegations.
    Bottoms BL; Diviak KR; Davis SL
    Child Abuse Negl; 1997 Sep; 21(9):845-59. PubMed ID: 9298262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.