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 *

360 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16226860)

  • 21. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T.
    Berger CE; Buckleton J; Champod C; Evett IW; Jackson G
    Sci Justice; 2011 Jun; 51(2):43-9. PubMed ID: 21605824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A review of the historical use and criticisms of gait analysis evidence.
    Nirenberg M; Vernon W; Birch I
    Sci Justice; 2018 Jul; 58(4):292-298. PubMed ID: 29895463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination.
    Crozier WE; Kukucka J; Garrett BL
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Oct; 315():110433. PubMed ID: 32763747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part II--judicial reasoning in decisions to exclude forensic identification evidence on grounds of reliability.
    Page M; Taylor J; Blenkin M
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Jul; 56(4):913-7. PubMed ID: 21729081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Nature and place of crime scene management within forensic sciences.
    Crispino F
    Sci Justice; 2008 Mar; 48(1):24-8. PubMed ID: 18450214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Science convicting the innocent.
    Berger K
    Med Law; 2010 Mar; 29(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 22457993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Differences in psychiatric expertise of responsibility: Assessment and initial hypotheses through a review of literature].
    Guivarch J; Piercecchi-Marti MD; Glezer D; Chabannes JM
    Encephale; 2015 Jun; 41(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 25864036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Peer review in forensic science.
    Ballantyne KN; Edmond G; Found B
    Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Aug; 277():66-76. PubMed ID: 28622536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Case histories as evidence.
    Herxheimer A; Healy D; Menkes DB
    Int J Risk Saf Med; 2012; 24(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 22436256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The Foundations of the Comparison Forensic Sciences: Report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
    Cordner S; Ranson D; Bassed R
    J Law Med; 2016; 24(2):297-302. PubMed ID: 30137704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The interface between forensic science and technology: how technology could cause a paradigm shift in the role of forensic institutes in the criminal justice system.
    Kloosterman A; Mapes A; Geradts Z; van Eijk E; Koper C; van den Berg J; Verheij S; van der Steen M; van Asten A
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 2015 Aug; 370(1674):. PubMed ID: 26101289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The future of forensic and crime scene science. Part I. A UK forensic science user and provider perspective.
    Mennell J; Shaw I
    Forensic Sci Int; 2006 Mar; 157 Suppl 1():S7-12. PubMed ID: 16431056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Communicating forensic science opinion: An examination of expert reporting practices.
    Bali AS; Edmond G; Ballantyne KN; Kemp RI; Martire KA
    Sci Justice; 2020 May; 60(3):216-224. PubMed ID: 32381238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The admissibility of offender profiling in courtroom: a review of legal issues and court opinions.
    Bosco D; Zappalà A; Santtila P
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2010; 33(3):184-91. PubMed ID: 20416950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Forensic Gait Analysis and Recognition: Standards of Evidence Admissibility.
    Macoveciuc I; Rando CJ; Borrion H
    J Forensic Sci; 2019 Sep; 64(5):1294-1303. PubMed ID: 30791120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Development of an instrument for assessing the quality of forensic evidence and expert testimony from three feature-comparison methods: DNA, voice, and fingerprint analysis.
    Villavicencio-Queijeiro A; Loyzance C; García-Castillo Z; Suzuri-Hernández J; Castillo-Alanís A; López-Olvera P; López-Escobedo F
    J Forensic Sci; 2022 Jan; 67(1):217-228. PubMed ID: 34596244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Fingermark age determinations: Legal considerations, review of the literature and practical propositions.
    Girod A; Ramotowski R; Lambrechts S; Misrielal P; Aalders M; Weyermann C
    Forensic Sci Int; 2016 May; 262():212-26. PubMed ID: 27044033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Biasability and reliability of expert forensic document examiners.
    Dror IE; Scherr KC; Mohammed LA; MacLean CL; Cunningham L
    Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Jan; 318():110610. PubMed ID: 33358191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The development of forensic DNA analysis: New debates on the issue of fundamental human rights.
    Oosthuizen T; Howes LM
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2022 Jan; 56():102606. PubMed ID: 34710822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Forensic science: A judicial perspective.
    Rakoff JS; Liu G
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2023 Oct; 120(41):e2301838120. PubMed ID: 37782784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.