148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20411316)
1. Effects of an alibi witness's relationship to the defendant on mock jurors' judgments.
Hosch HM; Culhane SE; Jolly KW; Chavez RM; Shaw LH
Law Hum Behav; 2011 Apr; 35(2):127-42. PubMed ID: 20411316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Children as alibi witnesses: the effect of age and confidence on mock-juror decision making.
Fawcett H; Winstanley K
Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(6):957-971. PubMed ID: 31984060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Altruistic Lying in an Alibi Corroboration Context: The Effects of Liking, Compliance, and Relationship between Suspects and Witnesses.
Marion SB; Burke TM
Behav Sci Law; 2017 Jan; 35(1):37-59. PubMed ID: 28008653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments.
Brewer N; Burke A
Law Hum Behav; 2002 Jun; 26(3):353-64. PubMed ID: 12061623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The influence of accounts and remorse on mock jurors' judgments of offenders.
Jehle A; Miller MK; Kemmelmeier M
Law Hum Behav; 2009 Oct; 33(5):393-404. PubMed ID: 19082696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence.
Najdowski CJ; Bottoms BL; Vargas MC
Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(3):401-30. PubMed ID: 19391102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Investigator Sensitivity to Alibi Witness Inconsistency after a Long Delay.
Price HL; Dahl LC
Behav Sci Law; 2017 Jan; 35(1):60-74. PubMed ID: 28233336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions.
Higgins PL; Heath WP; Grannemann BD
J Soc Psychol; 2007 Aug; 147(4):371-92. PubMed ID: 17955749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors' guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation.
Ruva CL; Guenther CC
Law Hum Behav; 2017 Oct; 41(5):478-493. PubMed ID: 28714733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Jurors' perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility.
McCarthy Wilcox A; NicDaeid N
Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Oct; 291():100-108. PubMed ID: 30216840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. "With a little help from my friends...": the role of co-witness relationship in susceptibility to misinformation.
Hope L; Ost J; Gabbert F; Healey S; Lenton E
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Feb; 127(2):476-84. PubMed ID: 17937922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Race, witness credibility, and jury deliberation in a simulated drug trafficking trial.
Shaw EV; Lynch M; Laguna S; Frenda SJ
Law Hum Behav; 2021 Jun; 45(3):215-228. PubMed ID: 34351204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Expert testimony regarding child witnesses: does it sensitize jurors to forensic interview quality?
Buck JA; London K; Wright DB
Law Hum Behav; 2011 Apr; 35(2):152-64. PubMed ID: 20443056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Relations among mock jurors' attitudes, trial evidence, and their selections of an insanity defense verdict: a path analytic approach.
Poulson RL; Brondino MJ; Brown H; Braithwaite RL
Psychol Rep; 1998 Feb; 82(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 9520530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of a proven error on evaluations of witness testimony.
Lavis T; Brewer N
Law Hum Behav; 2017 Jun; 41(3):314-323. PubMed ID: 27685643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
