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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12916228)

  • 1. The effects of British and American trial procedures on the quality of juror decision-making.
    Collett ME; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2003 Aug; 27(4):403-22. PubMed ID: 12916228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Eyewitness confidence and mock juror decisions of guilt: A meta-analytic review.
    Slane CR; Dodson CS
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Feb; 46(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 35073115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Estimating juror accuracy, juror ability, and the relationship between them.
    Park K
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Aug; 35(4):288-305. PubMed ID: 20658261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Who Is the Rotten Apple? Mock Jurors' Views of Teacher-Student Sexual Contact.
    Anderson A; Wingrove T; Fox P; McLean K; Styer E
    J Interpers Violence; 2018 May; 33(9):1449-1471. PubMed ID: 26621035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Are consistent juror decisions related to fast and frugal decision making? Investigating the relationship between juror consistency, decision speed and cue utilisation.
    Curley LJ; Murray J; MacLean R; Laybourn P
    Med Sci Law; 2017 Oct; 57(4):211-219. PubMed ID: 28992745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards.
    Spiecker SC; Worthington DL
    Law Hum Behav; 2003 Aug; 27(4):437-56. PubMed ID: 12916230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effects of judicial admonitions on hearsay evidence.
    Ho Lee D; Krauss DA; Lieberman J
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2005; 28(6):589-603. PubMed ID: 16125775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The consolidation of plaintiffs: the effects of number of plaintiffs on jurors' liability decisions, damage awards, and cognitive processing of evidence.
    Horowitz IA; Bordens KS
    J Appl Psychol; 2000 Dec; 85(6):909-18. PubMed ID: 11125655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Considering her circumstances: how ethnicity and cultural relativist arguments affect sexual harassment judgments by undergraduate and community mock jurors.
    Schwartz SL; Hunt JS
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):419-38. PubMed ID: 21374704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The influence of sex on mock jurors' verdicts across type of child abuse cases.
    Pettalia J; Pozzulo JD; Reed J
    Child Abuse Negl; 2017 Jul; 69():1-9. PubMed ID: 28415027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. News media reporting on civil litigation and its influence on civil justice decision making.
    Robbennolt JK; Studebaker CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2003 Feb; 27(1):5-27. PubMed ID: 12647465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Jurors' use of standards of proof in decisions about punitive damages.
    Woody WD; Greene E
    Behav Sci Law; 2012; 30(6):856-72. PubMed ID: 22829456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Beyond the black letter of the law: an empirical study of an individual judge's decision process for civil commitment hearings.
    Bursztajn HJ; Hamm RM; Gutheil TG
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1997; 25(1):79-94. PubMed ID: 9148885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impact of Evidence Type and Judicial Warning on Juror Perceptions of Global and Specific Witness Evidence.
    Wheatcroft JM; Keogan H
    J Psychol; 2017 Apr; 151(3):247-267. PubMed ID: 27982750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The impact of individual differences on jurors' note taking during trials and recall of trial evidence, and the association between the type of evidence recalled and verdicts.
    Lorek J; Centifanti LCM; Lyons M; Thorley C
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(2):e0212491. PubMed ID: 30779768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence?
    Henderson KS; Levett LM
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):638-649. PubMed ID: 27243361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.