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 *

331 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15638210)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Defendant stereotypicality moderates the effect of confession evidence on judgments of guilt.
    Smalarz L; Madon S; Turosak A
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Aug; 42(4):355-368. PubMed ID: 29939062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Investigating the Role of Delayed Disclosure and Relationship to the Perpetrator.
    Miller QC; Call AA; London K
    J Interpers Violence; 2022 Dec; 37(23-24):NP23374-NP23396. PubMed ID: 35285346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors.
    Carlson KA; Russo JE
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2001 Jun; 7(2):91-103. PubMed ID: 11477983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Mock Juror Perceptions of Child Witnesses on the Autism Spectrum: The Impact of Providing Diagnostic Labels and Information About Autism.
    Crane L; Wilcock R; Maras KL; Chui W; Marti-Sanchez C; Henry LA
    J Autism Dev Disord; 2020 May; 50(5):1509-1519. PubMed ID: 30056502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. What Evidence Matters to Jurors? The Prevalence and Importance of Different Homicide Trial Evidence to Mock Jurors.
    Schweitzer K; Nuñez N
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(3):437-451. PubMed ID: 31984031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Mental state at time of offense in the hot tub: An empirical examination of concurrent expert testimony in an insanity case.
    Krauss DA; Gongola J; Scurich N; Busch B
    Behav Sci Law; 2018 May; 36(3):358-372. PubMed ID: 29691882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Crime Scene Familiarity: Does it Influence Mock Jurors' Decisions?
    Pica E; Pozzulo J
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2017; 24(5):745-759. PubMed ID: 31983986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Psychological aspects of courtroom testimony.
    Loftus EF
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1980; 347():27-37. PubMed ID: 6930909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.
    Kovera MB; McAuliff BD; Hebert KS
    J Appl Psychol; 1999 Jun; 84(3):362-75. PubMed ID: 10380417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis.
    Kovera MB; Gresham AW; Borgida E; Gray E; Regan PC
    J Appl Psychol; 1997 Feb; 82(1):178-91. PubMed ID: 9119796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Viewing videotaped identification procedure increases juror sensitivity to single-blind photo-array administration.
    Modjadidi K; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Jun; 42(3):244-257. PubMed ID: 29809027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Expert evidence, the adversary system, and the jury.
    Vidmar N
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S137-43. PubMed ID: 16030330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The bottom line: the effect of written expert witness statements on juror verdicts and information processing.
    ForsterLee L; Horowitz I; Athaide-Victor E; Brown N
    Law Hum Behav; 2000 Apr; 24(2):259-70. PubMed ID: 10810841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: the state of the law and the science.
    Penrod SD; Fulero SM; Cutler BL
    Behav Sci Law; 1995; 13(2):229-59. PubMed ID: 10150378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.