137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16125775)
1. 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]
2. The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence.
London K; Nunez N
J Appl Psychol; 2000 Dec; 85(6):932-9. PubMed ID: 11125657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis.
Steblay N; Hosch HM; Culhane SE; McWethy A
Law Hum Behav; 2006 Aug; 30(4):469-92. PubMed ID: 16906469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Separating compensatory and punitive damage award decisions by trial bifurcation.
Shea Adams CM; Bourgeois MJ
Law Hum Behav; 2006 Feb; 30(1):11-30. PubMed ID: 16729206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Firing back at the backfire effect: the influence of mortality salience and nullification beliefs on reactions to inadmissible evidence.
Cook A; Arndt J; Lieberman JD
Law Hum Behav; 2004 Aug; 28(4):389-410. PubMed ID: 15499822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: the view from the bench and the jury box.
Poser S; Bornstein BH; McGorty EK
Law Hum Behav; 2003 Feb; 27(1):53-68. PubMed ID: 12647467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony.
Eastwood J; Caldwell J
J Forensic Sci; 2015 Nov; 60(6):1523-8. PubMed ID: 26234166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Permitting jury discussions during trial: impact of the Arizona reform.
Hannaford PL; Hans VP; Munsterman GT
Law Hum Behav; 2000 Jun; 24(3):359-82. PubMed ID: 10846377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome: its impact on jurors' decisions.
Schuller RA; Rzepa S
Law Hum Behav; 2002 Dec; 26(6):655-73. PubMed ID: 12508700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: a comparison of students and jurors.
Reichert J; Miller MK; Bornstein BH; Shelton HD
Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):395-418. PubMed ID: 21308752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The effects of harassment severity and organizational behavior on damage awards in a hostile work environment sexual harassment case.
Cass SA; Levett LM; Kovera MB
Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(3):303-21. PubMed ID: 19579260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
