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 *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16906469)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Gruesome evidence and emotion: anger, blame, and jury decision-making.
    Bright DA; Goodman-Delahunty J
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):183-202. PubMed ID: 16786406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Are consistent juror decisions related to fast and frugal decision making? Investigating the relationship between juror consistency, decision speed and cue utilisation.
    Curley LJ; Murray J; MacLean R; Laybourn P
    Med Sci Law; 2017 Oct; 57(4):211-219. PubMed ID: 28992745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: emotional bias and juror nullification.
    Horowitz IA; Kerr NL; Park ES; Gockel C
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):163-81. PubMed ID: 16786405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The impact of pretrial publicity on mock juror and jury verdicts: A meta-analysis.
    Hoetger LA; Devine DJ; Brank EM; Drew RM; Rees R
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Apr; 46(2):121-139. PubMed ID: 35084906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony.
    Martire KA; Kemp RI
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Jun; 33(3):225-36. PubMed ID: 18597165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The influence of FMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making.
    McCabe DP; Castel AD; Rhodes MG
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(4):566-77. PubMed ID: 21751243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A third verdict option: exploring the impact of the not proven verdict on mock juror decision making.
    Hope L; Greene E; Memon A; Gavisk M; Houston K
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Jun; 32(3):241-52. PubMed ID: 17703354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making.
    Ruva CL; McEvoy C
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2008 Sep; 14(3):226-35. PubMed ID: 18808276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The impact of type of out-of-court disclosure in a child sexual assault trial.
    Yozwiak JA; Golding JM; Marsil DF
    Child Maltreat; 2004 Aug; 9(3):325-34. PubMed ID: 15245684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Perceptions of elder physical abuse in the courtroom: the influence of hearsay witness testimony.
    Dunlap EE; Golding JM; Hodell EC; Marsil DF
    J Elder Abuse Negl; 2007; 19(3-4):19-39. PubMed ID: 18160379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The court of public opinion: lay perceptions of polygraph testing.
    Myers B; Latter R; Abdollahi-Arena MK
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Aug; 30(4):509-23. PubMed ID: 16718577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. When emotionality trumps reason: a study of individual processing style and juror bias.
    Gunnell JJ; Ceci SJ
    Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(6):850-77. PubMed ID: 20583074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.