617 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15161410)
1. 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]
2. Credibility in the courtroom: how likeable should an expert witness be?
Brodsky SL; Neal TM; Cramer RJ; Ziemke MH
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):525-32. PubMed ID: 20019000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials.
Butler B; Moran G
Behav Sci Law; 2007; 25(4):561-71. PubMed ID: 17440900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Hearsay versus children's testimony: Effects of truthful and deceptive statements on jurors' decisions.
Goodman GS; Myers JE; Qin J; Quas JA; Castelli P; Redlich AD; Rogers L
Law Hum Behav; 2006 Jun; 30(3):363-401. PubMed ID: 16779675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Expert testimony regarding child witnesses: does it sensitize jurors to forensic interview quality?
Buck JA; London K; Wright DB
Law Hum Behav; 2011 Apr; 35(2):152-64. PubMed ID: 20443056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. False confessions, expert testimony, and admissibility.
Watson C; Weiss KJ; Pouncey C
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2010; 38(2):174-86. PubMed ID: 20542936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Educating jurors about eyewitness testimony in criminal cases with circumstantial and forensic evidence.
Safer MA; Murphy RP; Wise RA; Bussey L; Millett C; Holfeld B
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 47():86-92. PubMed ID: 27037161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Can the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony be improved?
Wise RA; Kehn A
Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2020; 27(2):315-330. PubMed ID: 32944129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
