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 *

316 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17446571)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. An attribution theory-based content analysis of mock jurors' deliberations regarding coerced confessions.
    Stevenson MC; McCracken E; Watson A; Petty T; Plogher T
    Law Hum Behav; 2023 Apr; 47(2):348-366. PubMed ID: 37053386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors' guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation.
    Ruva CL; Guenther CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Oct; 41(5):478-493. PubMed ID: 28714733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of defendant sexual orientation on jurors' perceptions of child sexual assault.
    Wiley TR; Bottoms BL
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Feb; 33(1):46-60. PubMed ID: 18404363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The influence of sex on mock jurors' verdicts across type of child abuse cases.
    Pettalia J; Pozzulo JD; Reed J
    Child Abuse Negl; 2017 Jul; 69():1-9. PubMed ID: 28415027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Capital jury deliberation: effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination.
    Lynch M; Haney C
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Dec; 33(6):481-96. PubMed ID: 19333746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Mock jury trials in Taiwan--paving the ground for introducing lay participation.
    Huang KC; Lin CC
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Aug; 38(4):367-77. PubMed ID: 24707909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Explaining gender differences in jurors' reactions to child sexual assault cases.
    Bottoms BL; Peter-Hagene LC; Stevenson MC; Wiley TR; Mitchell TS; Goodman GS
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(6):789-812. PubMed ID: 25430669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of pretrial publicity on male and female jurors and judges in a mock rape trial.
    Riedel RG
    Psychol Rep; 1993 Dec; 73(3 Pt 1):819-32. PubMed ID: 8302986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Town vs. gown: a direct comparison of community residents and student mock jurors.
    Hosch HM; Culhane SE; Tubb VA; Granillo EA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):452-66. PubMed ID: 21351133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Jury decision making research: are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?
    Nuñez N; McCrea SM; Culhane SE
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):439-51. PubMed ID: 21351132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Factors that Influence Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Child Credibility.
    Call AA; Wingrove T
    J Child Sex Abus; 2022; 31(6):726-742. PubMed ID: 35833559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Sexual Assault on a University Campus.
    Pica E; Sheahan CL; Pozzulo J
    J Interpers Violence; 2021 May; 36(9-10):NP5447-NP5465. PubMed ID: 30239260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The verdict on jury trials for juveniles: the effects of defendant's age on trial outcomes.
    Warling D; Peterson-Badali M
    Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(1):63-82. PubMed ID: 12579618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.