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 *

202 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]
    of 11.