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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17703355)

  • 1. The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making.
    Neuschatz JS; Lawson DS; Swanner JK; Meissner CA; Neuschatz JS
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Apr; 32(2):137-49. PubMed ID: 17703355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony.
    Neuschatz JS; DeLoach DK; Hillgartner MA; Fessinger MB; Wetmore SA; Douglass AB; Bornstein BH; Le Grand AM
    Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2021; 28(4):508-530. PubMed ID: 35558148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: Dispositional vs. situational attributions for a confession.
    Woestehoff SA; Meissner CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Oct; 40(5):564-79. PubMed ID: 27227274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Hearsay versus children's testimony: Effects of truthful and deceptive statements on jurors' decisions.
    Goodman GS; Myers JE; Qin J; Quas JA; Castelli P; Redlich AD; Rogers L
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Jun; 30(3):363-401. PubMed ID: 16779675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Public eyewitness confidence can be influenced by the presence of other witnesses.
    Shaw JS; Appio LM; Zerr TK; Pontoski KE
    Law Hum Behav; 2007 Dec; 31(6):629-52. PubMed ID: 17318400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence?
    Henderson KS; Levett LM
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):638-649. PubMed ID: 27243361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of confession evidence on jurors' verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Mindthoff A; Ferreira PA; Meissner CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2024 Jun; 48(3):163-181. PubMed ID: 38949764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Perceptions of elder physical abuse in the courtroom: the influence of hearsay witness testimony.
    Dunlap EE; Golding JM; Hodell EC; Marsil DF
    J Elder Abuse Negl; 2007; 19(3-4):19-39. PubMed ID: 18160379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Do jurors "know" what isn't so about child witnesses?
    Quas JA; Thompson WC; Alison K; Stewart C
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Aug; 29(4):425-56. PubMed ID: 16133948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. How jurors use and misuse character evidence.
    Hunt JS; Budesheim TL
    J Appl Psychol; 2004 Apr; 89(2):347-61. PubMed ID: 15065980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Credibility of the emotional witness: a study of ratings by court judges.
    Wessel E; Drevland GC; Eilertsen DE; Magnussen S
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):221-30. PubMed ID: 16786408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of expert testimony and interrogation tactics on perceptions of confessions.
    Moffa MS; Platania J
    Psychol Rep; 2007 Apr; 100(2):563-70. PubMed ID: 17564233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Mock jurors' perceptions and case decisions following a juvenile interrogation: Investigating the roles of interested adults and confession type.
    Mindthoff A; Malloy LC; Höhs JM
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Jun; 44(3):209-222. PubMed ID: 32496092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.