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 *

840 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17506086)

  • 21. Science in the jury box: jurors' comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence.
    Hans VP; Kaye DH; Dann BM; Farley EJ; Albertson S
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Feb; 35(1):60-71. PubMed ID: 20461543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The influence of accounts and remorse on mock jurors' judgments of offenders.
    Jehle A; Miller MK; Kemmelmeier M
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Oct; 33(5):393-404. PubMed ID: 19082696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Jurors' reactions to satanic ritual abuse allegations.
    Bottoms BL; Diviak KR; Davis SL
    Child Abuse Negl; 1997 Sep; 21(9):845-59. PubMed ID: 9298262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Deconstructing the simplification of jury instructions: How simplifying the features of complexity affects jurors' application of instructions.
    Baguley CM; McKimmie BM; Masser BM
    Law Hum Behav; 2017 Jun; 41(3):284-304. PubMed ID: 28182459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts.
    Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM; Seib HM
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Jun; 89(3):524-41. PubMed ID: 15161410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence.
    Najdowski CJ; Bottoms BL; Vargas MC
    Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(3):401-30. PubMed ID: 19391102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Mock jurors' reactions to selective presentation of evidence from multiple-opportunity searches.
    Koehler JJ; Thompson WC
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Aug; 30(4):455-68. PubMed ID: 16786400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: it depends on the sample.
    McCabe JG; Krauss DA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):331-57. PubMed ID: 21766326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Plaintiff life-taking: the effect of mock juror attitudes toward suicide on assignment of negligence and damages in a civil suit.
    Worthington DL
    Behav Sci Law; 2004; 22(5):715-30. PubMed ID: 15378597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effects of mood and emotion on juror processing and judgments.
    Semmler C; Brewer N
    Behav Sci Law; 2002; 20(4):423-36. PubMed ID: 12210977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Stacking the Jury: Legal Professionals' Peremptory Challenges Reflect Jurors' Levels of Implicit Race Bias.
    Morrison M; DeVaul-Fetters A; Gawronski B
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2016 Aug; 42(8):1129-41. PubMed ID: 27354112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Insanity: making law in the absence of evidence.
    Finkel NJ
    Med Law; 1992; 11(5-6):383-404. PubMed ID: 1484462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Jurors' views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials.
    Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Turner DB
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(4):483-95. PubMed ID: 25043830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors' verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence.
    Woody WD; Forrest KD
    Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(3):333-60. PubMed ID: 19405020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Examining the effect of religiosity, moral disengagement, personal attribution, comprehension and proximity on juror decision making regarding insanity pleas.
    Tate B; Yelderman LA
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2022; 29(6):809-831. PubMed ID: 36267606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Credibility in the courtroom: how likeable should an expert witness be?
    Brodsky SL; Neal TM; Cramer RJ; Ziemke MH
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):525-32. PubMed ID: 20019000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 42.