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 *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17296116)

  • 1. [The influence of decision task and deliberation style on the verdict of the juries].
    Martín ME; de la Fuente EI; García J; De la Fuente L
    Psicothema; 2006 Nov; 18(4):772-7. PubMed ID: 17296116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effect of the deliberation process and jurors' prior legal knowledge on the sentence: the role of psychological expertise and crime scene photo.
    Finkelstein R; Bastounis M
    Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(3):426-41. PubMed ID: 20014448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial.
    Golding JM; Bradshaw GS; Dunlap EE; Hodell EC
    Child Maltreat; 2007 May; 12(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 17446571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Sex, sexual orientation, and sexism: what influence do these factors have on verdicts in a crime-of-passion case?
    Ragatz LL; Russell B
    J Soc Psychol; 2010; 150(4):341-60. PubMed ID: 20718220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of judicial instructions and case characteristics in a mock jury trial of battered women who kill.
    Terrance CA; Matheson K; Spanos NP
    Law Hum Behav; 2000 Apr; 24(2):207-29. PubMed ID: 10810839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Inferring models of opinion dynamics from aggregated jury data.
    Burghardt K; Rand W; Girvan M
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(7):e0218312. PubMed ID: 31260463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The bastard verdict and its influence on jurors.
    Curley LJ; MacLean R; Murray J; Laybourn P; Brown D
    Med Sci Law; 2019 Jan; 59(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 30501474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Jurors' cognitive depletion and performance during jury deliberation as a function of jury diversity and defendant race.
    Peter-Hagene L
    Law Hum Behav; 2019 Jun; 43(3):232-249. PubMed ID: 31120276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Proven and not proven: A potential alternative to the current Scottish verdict system.
    Curley LJ; Munro J; Turner J; Frumkin LA; Jackson E; Lages M
    Behav Sci Law; 2022 May; 40(3):452-466. PubMed ID: 35460096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A multilevel model of minority opinion expression and team decision-making effectiveness.
    Park G; Deshon RP
    J Appl Psychol; 2010 Sep; 95(5):824-33. PubMed ID: 20718527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An analysis of the effects of subjective and objective instruction forms on mock-juries' murder/manslaughter distinctions.
    Spackman MP; Belcher JC; Calapp JW; Taylor A
    Law Hum Behav; 2002 Dec; 26(6):605-23. PubMed ID: 12508697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation.
    Salerno JM; Diamond SS
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2010 Apr; 17(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 20382916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. A dynamic context model of interactive behavior.
    Fu WT
    Cogn Sci; 2011 Jul; 35(5):874-904. PubMed ID: 21736603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The power of meaningful numbers: Attorney guidance and jury deliberation improve the reliability and gist validity of damage awards.
    Reed K; Hans VP; Rotenstein V; Helm RK; Rodriguez A; McKendall P; Reyna VF
    Law Hum Behav; 2024 Apr; 48(2):83-103. PubMed ID: 38602803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Intentional or Negligent Homicide? Evidence for Juror Decision Making.
    Gambetti E; Nori R; Giusberti F
    Psychol Rep; 2016 Oct; 119(2):395-410. PubMed ID: 27469365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process predictors of real jury verdicts.
    Devine DJ; Krouse PC; Cavanaugh CM; Basora JC
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):670-682. PubMed ID: 27598561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Perceptions of domestic violence and mock jurors' sentencing decisions.
    Kern R; Libkuman TM; Temple SL
    J Interpers Violence; 2007 Dec; 22(12):1515-35. PubMed ID: 17993639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. When are two heads better than one and why?
    Koriat A
    Science; 2012 Apr; 336(6079):360-2. PubMed ID: 22517862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.