210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15704631)
1. Sequestration of lay witnesses and experts.
Slovenko R
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2004; 32(4):447-50. PubMed ID: 15704631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Psychiatric evidence on the ultimate issue.
Buchanan A
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2006; 34(1):14-21. PubMed ID: 16585229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. US Supreme Court decisions, expert testimony, and implant dentistry.
Flanagan D
J Oral Implantol; 2002; 28(2):97-8. PubMed ID: 12498453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. UK Supreme Court abolishes immunity for expert witnesses.
Dyer C
BMJ; 2011 Mar; 342():d2096. PubMed ID: 21454462
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Immunity for expert witnesses is under threat from a case coming to Supreme Court.
Dyer C
BMJ; 2010 Dec; 341():c7337. PubMed ID: 21183566
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Ten years after Daubert: the status of the states.
Keierleber JA; Bohan TL
J Forensic Sci; 2005 Sep; 50(5):1154-63. PubMed ID: 16225224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The expert witness: understanding the rationale.
Brenner RJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2007 Sep; 4(9):612-6. PubMed ID: 17845966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Judicial gatekeeping and the social construction of the admissibility of expert testimony.
Merlino ML; Murray CI; Richardson JT
Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(2):187-206. PubMed ID: 18344168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. United States Supreme Court rules on expert testimony.
McAbee GN
Pediatrics; 1995 Jun; 95(6):934-6. PubMed ID: 7761225
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Admissibility and per se exclusion of hypnotically elicited recall in American courts of law.
Perry C
Int J Clin Exp Hypn; 1997 Jul; 45(3):266-79. PubMed ID: 9204639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Missouri overrules the United States Supreme Court on capital punishment for minors.
Herbert PB; Meyers JR
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2004; 32(4):443-6. PubMed ID: 15704630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluating science outside the trial box: applying Daubert to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' criminal history score.
Krauss DA
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2006; 29(4):289-305. PubMed ID: 16530267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clark v. Arizona: diminishing the right of mentally ill individuals to a full and fair defense.
Wortzel H; Metzner J
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2006; 34(4):545-8. PubMed ID: 17185487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reeves decision changes expert witness qualifications.
Schulte DJ
J Orofac Pain; 2008; 22(4):364. PubMed ID: 19090409
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Rock v. Arkansas: hypnosis, the defendant's privilege.
Orne MT; Dinges DF; Orne EC
Int J Clin Exp Hypn; 1990 Oct; 38(4):250-65. PubMed ID: 2258243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Daubert, regulation, and the courts.
Gori GB
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Oct; 49(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 17658206
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Hypothetical constructs, hypothetical questions, and the expert witness.
Brodsky SL; Titcomb C; Sams DM; Dickson K; Benda Y
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2012; 35(5-6):354-61. PubMed ID: 23031651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Supreme Court decisions improve malpractice environment.
Schulte DJ
J Mich Dent Assoc; 2004 Nov; 86(11):20. PubMed ID: 15609819
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The court appointment of expert witnesses in the United States: a failed experiment.
Imwinkelried EJ
Med Law; 1989; 8(6):601-9. PubMed ID: 2517994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Admissible expert testimony and summary judgment: reconciling Celotex and Daubert after Kochert.
Razavi B
J Leg Med; 2008; 29(3):307-43. PubMed ID: 18726758
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
