207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17620274)
1. Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony.
Lieberman JD; Krauss DA; Kyger M; Lehoux M
Behav Sci Law; 2007; 25(4):507-26. PubMed ID: 17620274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases.
Krauss DA; Lieberman JD; Olson J
Behav Sci Law; 2004; 22(6):801-22. PubMed ID: 15568199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony.
Guy LS; Edens JF
Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(2):215-37. PubMed ID: 12645046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Expert testimony in capital sentencing: juror responses.
Montgomery JH; Ciccone JR; Garvey SP; Eisenberg T
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2005; 33(4):509-18. PubMed ID: 16394228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Expert testimony in sexually violent predator commitments: conceptualizing legal standards of "mental disorder" and "likely to reoffend".
Sreenivasan S; Weinberger LE; Garrick T
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2003; 31(4):471-85. PubMed ID: 14974803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Risk communication in sexually violent predator hearings.
Scott S; Gilcrist B; Thurston N; Huss MT
Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(3):322-36. PubMed ID: 19908210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Gender differences in attitudes toward psychopathic sexual offenders.
Guy LS; Edens JF
Behav Sci Law; 2006; 24(1):65-85. PubMed ID: 16491475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Jurors report that risk measure scores matter in sexually violent predator trials, but that other factors matter more.
Turner DB; Boccaccini MT; Murrie DC; Harris PB
Behav Sci Law; 2015 Feb; 33(1):56-73. PubMed ID: 25613035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A practical guide for the evaluation of sexual recidivism risk in mentally retarded sex offenders.
Phenix A; Sreenivasan S
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2009; 37(4):509-24. PubMed ID: 20018999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Evaluating layperson interpretation of actuarial sexual violence risk data: A multi-method comparison of risk communication with attention to gender bias.
Coaker LC; Batastini AB; Davis RM; Lester ME
J Forensic Sci; 2024 Jul; 69(4):1364-1376. PubMed ID: 38602046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert.
Cooper J; Hall J
Behav Sci Law; 2000; 18(6):719-29. PubMed ID: 11180418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reality check: a comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment.
McCabe JG; Krauss DA; Lieberman JD
Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(6):730-50. PubMed ID: 19856483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Secondary confessions: the influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors' perceptions of informant testimony.
Maeder EM; Pica E
Law Hum Behav; 2014 Dec; 38(6):560-8. PubMed ID: 25180762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The biasing effect of the "sexually violent predator" label on legal decisions.
Scurich N; Gongola J; Krauss DA
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 47():109-14. PubMed ID: 27206709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. An examination of the assumptions of specialization, mental disorder, and dangerousness in sex offenders.
Simon LM
Behav Sci Law; 2000; 18(2-3):275-308. PubMed ID: 10874290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Sensitive violent sex offense topic. Fear of recurrence].
Wepner U
MMW Fortschr Med; 2005 Dec; 147(48):22. PubMed ID: 16389857
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
