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 *

204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12061623)

  • 21. Children as alibi witnesses: the effect of age and confidence on mock-juror decision making.
    Fawcett H; Winstanley K
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(6):957-971. PubMed ID: 31984060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Mock-juror evaluations of traditional and ratings-based eyewitness identification evidence.
    Sauer JD; Palmer MA; Brewer N
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Aug; 41(4):375-384. PubMed ID: 28191988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Relations among mock jurors' attitudes, trial evidence, and their selections of an insanity defense verdict: a path analytic approach.
    Poulson RL; Brondino MJ; Brown H; Braithwaite RL
    Psychol Rep; 1998 Feb; 82(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 9520530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony.
    Neuschatz JS; DeLoach DK; Hillgartner MA; Fessinger MB; Wetmore SA; Douglass AB; Bornstein BH; Le Grand AM
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2021; 28(4):508-530. PubMed ID: 35558148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony.
    Guy LS; Edens JF
    Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(2):215-37. PubMed ID: 12645046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts.
    Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM; Seib HM
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Jun; 89(3):524-41. PubMed ID: 15161410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Differential effects of direct and cross examination on mock jurors' perceptions and memory in cases of child sexual abuse.
    Olaguez AP; Klemfuss JZ
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(5):778-796. PubMed ID: 33859514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors.
    Carlson KA; Russo JE
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2001 Jun; 7(2):91-103. PubMed ID: 11477983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony.
    Martire KA; Kemp RI
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Jun; 33(3):225-36. PubMed ID: 18597165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: the power of (a few) minor details.
    Bell BE; Loftus EF
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 1989 May; 56(5):669-79. PubMed ID: 2724064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Does post-identification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures?
    Douglass AB; Neuschatz JS; Imrich J; Wilkinson M
    Law Hum Behav; 2010 Aug; 34(4):282-94. PubMed ID: 19585229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Modelling the effects of crime type and evidence on judgments about guilt.
    Pearson JM; Law JR; Skene JAG; Beskind DH; Vidmar N; Ball DA; Malekpour A; Carter RM; Skene JHP
    Nat Hum Behav; 2018 Nov; 2(11):856-866. PubMed ID: 30931399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The influence of accounts and remorse on mock jurors' judgments of offenders.
    Jehle A; Miller MK; Kemmelmeier M
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Oct; 33(5):393-404. PubMed ID: 19082696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: the Effect of Truncated Testimony on Juror Decision-making.
    Anderson L; Gross J; Sonne T; Zajac R; Hayne H
    Behav Sci Law; 2016 Jan; 34(1):200-17. PubMed ID: 26879737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Juror perceptions of child eyewitness testimony in a sexual abuse trial.
    Holcomb MJ; Jacquin KM
    J Child Sex Abus; 2007; 16(2):79-95. PubMed ID: 17895233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.