374 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12579618)
1. The verdict on jury trials for juveniles: the effects of defendant's age on trial outcomes.
Warling D; Peterson-Badali M
Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(1):63-82. PubMed ID: 12579618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Juveniles tried as adults: the age of the juvenile matters.
Semple JK; Woody WD
Psychol Rep; 2011 Aug; 109(1):301-8. PubMed ID: 22049670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The impact of developmental language disorder in a defendant's description on mock jurors' perceptions and judgements.
Hobson HM; Woodley J; Gamblen S; Brackely J; O'Neill F; Miles D; Westwood C
Int J Lang Commun Disord; 2023 Jan; 58(1):189-205. PubMed ID: 36087284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. The potentially biasing effects of voir dire in juvenile waiver cases.
Greathouse SM; Sothmann FC; Levett LM; Kovera MB
Law Hum Behav; 2011 Dec; 35(6):427-39. PubMed ID: 20936334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making.
Crocker CB; Kovera MB
Law Hum Behav; 2010 Jun; 34(3):212-26. PubMed ID: 19644740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions.
Higgins PL; Heath WP; Grannemann BD
J Soc Psychol; 2007 Aug; 147(4):371-92. PubMed ID: 17955749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. "But He's a Star Football Player!": How Social Status Influences Mock Jurors' Perceptions in a Sexual Assault Case.
Pica E; Sheahan C; Pozzulo J
J Interpers Violence; 2020 Oct; 35(19-20):3963-3985. PubMed ID: 29294785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Gender, Generations, and Guilt: Defendant Gender and Age Affect Jurors' Decisions and Perceptions in an Intimate Partner Homicide Trial.
Ruva CL; Smith KD; Sykes EC
J Interpers Violence; 2023 Dec; 38(23-24):12089-12112. PubMed ID: 37602736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of physical attractiveness on evaluations of a male employee's allegation of sexual harassment by his female employer.
Wuensch KL; Moore CH
J Soc Psychol; 2004 Apr; 144(2):207-17. PubMed ID: 15074507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An attribution theory-based content analysis of mock jurors' deliberations regarding coerced confessions.
Stevenson MC; McCracken E; Watson A; Petty T; Plogher T
Law Hum Behav; 2023 Apr; 47(2):348-366. PubMed ID: 37053386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effectiveness of participation as a defendant: the attorney-juvenile client relationship.
Schmidt MG; Reppucci ND; Woolard JL
Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(2):175-98. PubMed ID: 12645044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making.
Ruva CL; McEvoy C
J Exp Psychol Appl; 2008 Sep; 14(3):226-35. PubMed ID: 18808276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Town vs. gown: a direct comparison of community residents and student mock jurors.
Hosch HM; Culhane SE; Tubb VA; Granillo EA
Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):452-66. PubMed ID: 21351133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
