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 *

330 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15638210)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony.
    Lieberman JD; Krauss DA; Kyger M; Lehoux M
    Behav Sci Law; 2007; 25(4):507-26. PubMed ID: 17620274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: the Effect of Truncated Testimony on Juror Decision-making.
    Anderson L; Gross J; Sonne T; Zajac R; Hayne H
    Behav Sci Law; 2016 Jan; 34(1):200-17. PubMed ID: 26879737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Individual versus group decision making: Jurors' reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony.
    Salerno JM; Bottoms BL; Peter-Hagene LC
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(9):e0183580. PubMed ID: 28931011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Testing the waters: An investigation of the impact of hot tubbing on experts from referral through testimony.
    Perillo JT; Perillo AD; Despodova NM; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Jun; 45(3):229-242. PubMed ID: 34351205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making.
    Curley LJ; Munro J; Dror IE
    Med Sci Law; 2022 Jul; 62(3):206-215. PubMed ID: 35175157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Enhancing the credibility of complainants in child sexual assault trials: the effect of expert evidence and judicial directions.
    Goodman-Delahunty J; Cossins A; O'Brien K
    Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(6):769-83. PubMed ID: 21110393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases.
    Krauss DA; Lieberman JD; Olson J
    Behav Sci Law; 2004; 22(6):801-22. PubMed ID: 15568199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Does methodology matter in eyewitness identification research? The effect of live versus video exposure on eyewitness identification accuracy.
    Pozzulo JD; Crescini C; Panton T
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2008; 31(5):430-7. PubMed ID: 18790535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Victim Impact Statements: How Victim Social Class Affects Juror Decision Making.
    Schweitzer K; Nuñez N
    Violence Vict; 2017 Jun; 32(3):521-532. PubMed ID: 28516855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Jurors' perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility.
    McCarthy Wilcox A; NicDaeid N
    Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Oct; 291():100-108. PubMed ID: 30216840
    [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. Unloading the hired gun: Inoculation effects in expert witness testimony.
    Ziemke MH; Brodsky SL
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():91-7. PubMed ID: 26299600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. Deciding the fate of others: the cognitive underpinnings of racially biased juror decision making.
    Kleider HM; Knuycky LR; Cavrak SE
    J Gen Psychol; 2012; 139(3):175-93. PubMed ID: 24837019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis.
    Bornstein BH; Golding JM; Neuschatz J; Kimbrough C; Reed K; Magyarics C; Luecht K
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Feb; 41(1):13-28. PubMed ID: 27762572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Jurors' views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials.
    Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Turner DB
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(4):483-95. PubMed ID: 25043830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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