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 *

270 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12645046)

  • 61. Impact of expert testimony on the believability of repressed memories.
    Sugarman DB; Boney-McCoy S
    Violence Vict; 1997; 12(2):115-26. PubMed ID: 9403982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. How psychiatrists and judges assess the dangerousness of persons with mental illness: an 'expertise bias".
    Poletiek FH
    Behav Sci Law; 2002; 20(1-2):19-29. PubMed ID: 11979489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Scholarly, clinical, and legal questions concerning hebephilia, with particular reference to sexually violent predator civil commitment proceedings.
    Blanchard R
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(1):157-8; author reply 158. PubMed ID: 22396353
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. A population at risk: civil commitment of substance abusers after Kansas v. Hendricks.
    Krongard ML
    Calif Law Rev; 2002 Jan; 90(1):111-63. PubMed ID: 16506331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. 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]  

  • 66. 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]  

  • 67. 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]  

  • 68. Diagnosing and litigating hebephilia in sexually violent predator civil commitment proceedings.
    Fabian JM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2011; 39(4):496-505. PubMed ID: 22159977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. [Sensitive violent sex offense topic. Fear of recurrence].
    Wepner U
    MMW Fortschr Med; 2005 Dec; 147(48):22. PubMed ID: 16389857
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments.
    Devenport JL; Cutler BL
    Law Hum Behav; 2004 Oct; 28(5):569-76. PubMed ID: 15638210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Perceptions of domestic violence and mock jurors' sentencing decisions.
    Kern R; Libkuman TM; Temple SL
    J Interpers Violence; 2007 Dec; 22(12):1515-35. PubMed ID: 17993639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear.
    McQuiston-Surrett D; Saks MJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Oct; 33(5):436-53. PubMed ID: 19259800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial.
    Golding JM; Bradshaw GS; Dunlap EE; Hodell EC
    Child Maltreat; 2007 May; 12(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 17446571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Differences in expert witness knowledge: do mock jurors notice and does it matter?
    Parrott CT; Neal TM; Wilson JK; Brodsky SL
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2015 Mar; 43(1):69-81. PubMed ID: 25770282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. A third verdict option: exploring the impact of the not proven verdict on mock juror decision making.
    Hope L; Greene E; Memon A; Gavisk M; Houston K
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Jun; 32(3):241-52. PubMed ID: 17703354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Plaintiff life-taking: the effect of mock juror attitudes toward suicide on assignment of negligence and damages in a civil suit.
    Worthington DL
    Behav Sci Law; 2004; 22(5):715-30. PubMed ID: 15378597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. The effect of expert witness testimony and complainant cognitive statements on mock jurors' perceptions of rape trial testimony.
    Ryan N; Westera N
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(5):693-705. PubMed ID: 31984046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Mock juror sensitivity to forensic evidence in drug facilitated sexual assaults.
    Schuller RA; Ryan A; Krauss D; Jenkins G
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2013; 36(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23433947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: emotional bias and juror nullification.
    Horowitz IA; Kerr NL; Park ES; Gockel C
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):163-81. PubMed ID: 16786405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Actuarial risk assessment: commentary on Berlin et al.
    Hart SD
    Sex Abuse; 2003 Oct; 15(4):383-8. PubMed ID: 14571542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.