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 *

286 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12645046)

  • 41. Washington State's unscientific approach to the problem of repeat sex offenders.
    Brody AL; Green R
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1994; 22(3):343-56. PubMed ID: 7841506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.
    Levett LM; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Aug; 32(4):363-74. PubMed ID: 17940854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors' Perceptions of Recanted Confessions.
    Ewanation L; Maeder EM
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():699077. PubMed ID: 34539496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The civil commitment of sexually violent predators: a unique Texas approach.
    Bailey RK
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2002; 30(4):525-32. PubMed ID: 12539908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors' verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence.
    Woody WD; Forrest KD
    Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(3):333-60. PubMed ID: 19405020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Describing, diagnosing, and naming psychopathy: how do youth psychopathy labels influence jurors?
    Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Clark JW; Cornell DG
    Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(4):487-510. PubMed ID: 18683203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The effect of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised in capital cases: mock jurors' responses to the label of psychopathy.
    Cox J; DeMatteo DS; Foster EE
    Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(6):878-91. PubMed ID: 20824653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. How bad is civil commitment? A study of attitudes toward violence and involuntary hospitalization.
    Mossman D; Hart KJ
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1993; 21(2):181-94. PubMed ID: 8364236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. How likely is "likely to reoffend" in sex offender civil commitment trials?
    Knighton JC; Murrie DC; Boccaccini MT; Turner DB
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Jun; 38(3):293-304. PubMed ID: 24885113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. When mitigation evidence makes a difference: effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials.
    Barnett ME; Brodsky SL; Davis CM
    Behav Sci Law; 2004; 22(6):751-70. PubMed ID: 15386561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense.
    Schweitzer NJ; Saks MJ
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(4):592-607. PubMed ID: 21744379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Commentary: muddy diagnostic waters in the SVP courtroom.
    Prentky RA; Coward AI; Gabriel AM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2008; 36(4):455-8. PubMed ID: 19092061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Secondary confessions: the influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors' perceptions of informant testimony.
    Maeder EM; Pica E
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Dec; 38(6):560-8. PubMed ID: 25180762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: the impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony.
    Schuller RA; Cripps J
    Law Hum Behav; 1998 Feb; 22(1):17-31. PubMed ID: 9487789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions.
    Corwin EP; Cramer RJ; Griffin DA; Brodsky SL
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 22396340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The effect of framing actuarial risk probabilities on involuntary civil commitment decisions.
    Scurich N; John RS
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Apr; 35(2):83-91. PubMed ID: 20145984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures.
    Devenport JL; Stinson V; Cutler BL; Kravitz DA
    J Appl Psychol; 2002 Dec; 87(6):1042-54. PubMed ID: 12558212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Diagnostic and risk profiles among civilly committed sex offenders in Washington State.
    Jackson RL; Richards HJ
    Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol; 2007 Jun; 51(3):313-23. PubMed ID: 17478861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

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