286 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12645046)
1. 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]
2. Gender differences in attitudes toward psychopathic sexual offenders.
Guy LS; Edens JF
Behav Sci Law; 2006; 24(1):65-85. PubMed ID: 16491475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Risk communication in sexually violent predator hearings.
Scott S; Gilcrist B; Thurston N; Huss MT
Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(3):322-36. PubMed ID: 19908210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Expert testimony in capital sentencing: juror responses.
Montgomery JH; Ciccone JR; Garvey SP; Eisenberg T
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2005; 33(4):509-18. PubMed ID: 16394228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony.
Lieberman JD; Krauss DA; Kyger M; Lehoux M
Behav Sci Law; 2007; 25(4):507-26. PubMed ID: 17620274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases.
Krauss DA; Lieberman JD; Olson J
Behav Sci Law; 2004; 22(6):801-22. PubMed ID: 15568199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Use of DSM paraphilia diagnoses in sexually violent predator commitment cases.
First MB; Halon RL
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2008; 36(4):443-54. PubMed ID: 19092060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reality check: a comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment.
McCabe JG; Krauss DA; Lieberman JD
Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(6):730-50. PubMed ID: 19856483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Expert testimony in sexually violent predator commitments: conceptualizing legal standards of "mental disorder" and "likely to reoffend".
Sreenivasan S; Weinberger LE; Garrick T
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2003; 31(4):471-85. PubMed ID: 14974803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A practical guide for the evaluation of sexual recidivism risk in mentally retarded sex offenders.
Phenix A; Sreenivasan S
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):509-24. PubMed ID: 20018999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Jurors report that risk measure scores matter in sexually violent predator trials, but that other factors matter more.
Turner DB; Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Harris PB
Behav Sci Law; 2015 Feb; 33(1):56-73. PubMed ID: 25613035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert.
Cooper J; Hall J
Behav Sci Law; 2000; 18(6):719-29. PubMed ID: 11180418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The role and reliability of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in U.S. sexually violent predator evaluations: a case law survey.
DeMatteo D; Edens JF; Galloway M; Cox J; Smith ST; Formon D
Law Hum Behav; 2014 Jun; 38(3):248-55. PubMed ID: 24127888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Expert testimony and the effects of a biological approach, psychopathy, and juror attitudes in cases of insanity.
Rendell JA; Huss MT; Jensen ML
Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(3):411-25. PubMed ID: 20014145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Battered women who kill: the impact of expert testimony and empathy induction in the courtroom.
Plumm KM; Terrance CA
Violence Against Women; 2009 Feb; 15(2):186-205. PubMed ID: 19126834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Risk and the preventive detention of sex offenders in Australia and the United States.
Mercado CC; Ogloff JR
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2007; 30(1):49-59. PubMed ID: 17157911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
