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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18546064)

  • 1. Strength of evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the liberation hypothesis: data from the field.
    Devine DJ; Buddenbaum J; Houp S; Studebaker N; Stolle DP
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Apr; 33(2):136-48. PubMed ID: 18546064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process predictors of real jury verdicts.
    Devine DJ; Krouse PC; Cavanaugh CM; Basora JC
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Dec; 40(6):670-682. PubMed ID: 27598561
    [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. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. An archival analysis of actual cases of historic child sexual abuse: A comparison of jury and bench trials.
    Read JD; Connolly DA; Welsh A
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Jun; 30(3):259-85. PubMed ID: 16786401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making.
    Ruva CL; McEvoy C
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2008 Sep; 14(3):226-35. PubMed ID: 18808276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The impact of pretrial publicity on mock juror and jury verdicts: A meta-analysis.
    Hoetger LA; Devine DJ; Brank EM; Drew RM; Rees R
    Law Hum Behav; 2022 Apr; 46(2):121-139. PubMed ID: 35084906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Gruesome evidence and emotion: anger, blame, and jury decision-making.
    Bright DA; Goodman-Delahunty J
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):183-202. PubMed ID: 16786406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How video image size interacts with evidence strength, defendant emotion, and the defendant-victim relationship to alter perceptions of the defendant.
    Heath WP; Grannemann BD
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(4):496-507. PubMed ID: 24715347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Conduct and its consequences: attempts at debiasing jury judgments.
    Smith AC; Greene E
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Oct; 29(5):505-26. PubMed ID: 16254740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Arbitrariness and the death penalty: how the defendant's appearance during trial influences capital jurors' punishment decision.
    Antonio ME
    Behav Sci Law; 2006; 24(2):215-34. PubMed ID: 16557640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Permitting jury discussions during trial: impact of the Arizona reform.
    Hannaford PL; Hans VP; Munsterman GT
    Law Hum Behav; 2000 Jun; 24(3):359-82. PubMed ID: 10846377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An examination of jury verdicts for evidence of a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect or a black sheep effect.
    Taylor TS; Hosch HM
    Law Hum Behav; 2004 Oct; 28(5):587-98. PubMed ID: 15638212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Understanding pretrial publicity: predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors.
    Hope L; Memon A; McGeorge P
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2004 Jun; 10(2):111-9. PubMed ID: 15222805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.