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 *

200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20382914)

  • 1. The vision in "blind" justice: expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition.
    Dror IE; Cole SA
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2010 Apr; 17(2):161-7. PubMed ID: 20382914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. [Differences in psychiatric expertise of responsibility: Assessment and initial hypotheses through a review of literature].
    Guivarch J; Piercecchi-Marti MD; Glezer D; Chabannes JM
    Encephale; 2015 Jun; 41(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 25864036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Forensic cultures in historical perspective: technologies of witness, testimony, judgment (and justice?).
    Hamlin C
    Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci; 2013 Mar; 44(1):4-15. PubMed ID: 23040200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Expertise in fingerprint identification.
    Thompson MB; Tangen JM; McCarthy DJ
    J Forensic Sci; 2013 Nov; 58(6):1519-30. PubMed ID: 23786258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cognitive science and the law.
    Busey TA; Loftus GR
    Trends Cogn Sci; 2007 Mar; 11(3):111-7. PubMed ID: 17270486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear.
    McQuiston-Surrett D; Saks MJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Oct; 33(5):436-53. PubMed ID: 19259800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Human matching performance of genuine crime scene latent fingerprints.
    Thompson MB; Tangen JM; McCarthy DJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Feb; 38(1):84-93. PubMed ID: 23876092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors' Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence.
    Thompson WC; Scurich N
    J Forensic Sci; 2019 Sep; 64(5):1379-1388. PubMed ID: 30791101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Communicating forensic scientific expertise: An analysis of expert reports and corresponding testimony in Tasmanian courts.
    Reid CA; Howes LM
    Sci Justice; 2020 Mar; 60(2):108-119. PubMed ID: 32111283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Biasability and reliability of expert forensic document examiners.
    Dror IE; Scherr KC; Mohammed LA; MacLean CL; Cunningham L
    Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Jan; 318():110610. PubMed ID: 33358191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Just truth? Carefully applying history, philosophy and sociology of science to the forensic use of CCTV images.
    Edmond G
    Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci; 2013 Mar; 44(1):80-91. PubMed ID: 23036862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?*
    Kukucka J; Hiley A; Kassin SM
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Nov; 65(6):1978-1990. PubMed ID: 32790911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [The topical problems pertaining to the performance of forensic medical expertise of the subjects suspected or accused of committing a crime and remaining in custody].
    Pinchuk PV; Ustiukhina IA; Samchuk VV
    Sud Med Ekspert; 2012; 55(2):39-42. PubMed ID: 22686056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The US Department of Justice stumbles on visual perception.
    Albright TD
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2021 Jun; 118(24):. PubMed ID: 34031260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The importance of forensic evidence for decisions on criminal guilt.
    Ling S; Kaplan J; Berryessa CM
    Sci Justice; 2021 Mar; 61(2):142-149. PubMed ID: 33736846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination.
    Crozier WE; Kukucka J; Garrett BL
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Oct; 315():110433. PubMed ID: 32763747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Diagnosing Crime and Diagnosing Disease-II: Visual Pattern Perception and Diagnostic Accuracy.
    Satya-Murti S; Lockhart JJ
    J Forensic Sci; 2018 Sep; 63(5):1429-1434. PubMed ID: 29341129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The factors associated with forensic psychiatrists' decisions in criminal responsibility and social dangerousness evaluations.
    Mandarelli G; Carabellese F; Felthous AR; Parmigiani G; Del Casale A; Catanesi R; Montalbò D; Ferracuti S
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2019; 66():101503. PubMed ID: 31706410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Criminal court expert reports].
    Fontaine L
    Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac; 2011 Apr; 112(2):101-6. PubMed ID: 20688347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.