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 *

194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21308752)

  • 21. Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: emotional bias and juror nullification.
    Horowitz IA; Kerr NL; Park ES; Gockel C
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Apr; 30(2):163-81. PubMed ID: 16786405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The influence of a physician's use of a diagnostic decision aid on the malpractice verdicts of mock jurors.
    Arkes HR; Shaffer VA; Medow MA
    Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(2):201-8. PubMed ID: 18349437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The court of public opinion: lay perceptions of polygraph testing.
    Myers B; Latter R; Abdollahi-Arena MK
    Law Hum Behav; 2006 Aug; 30(4):509-23. PubMed ID: 16718577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The emotional child witness: effects on juror decision-making.
    Cooper A; Quas JA; Cleveland KC
    Behav Sci Law; 2014; 32(6):813-28. PubMed ID: 25537438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Who Is the Rotten Apple? Mock Jurors' Views of Teacher-Student Sexual Contact.
    Anderson A; Wingrove T; Fox P; McLean K; Styer E
    J Interpers Violence; 2018 May; 33(9):1449-1471. PubMed ID: 26621035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Mock jurors' evaluation of firearm examiner testimony.
    Garrett BL; Scurich N; Crozier WE
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Oct; 44(5):412-423. PubMed ID: 33090867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Will jurors correct for evidence interdependence in their verdicts? It depends.
    Pate M; Kienzle M; Vogler V
    Behav Sci Law; 2019 Jan; 37(1):78-89. PubMed ID: 30266044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Gender biases in decisions on euthanasia among Swedish jurors.
    Sjöberg RL; Lindholm T
    Nord J Psychiatry; 2003; 57(6):469-71. PubMed ID: 14630553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. The impact of individual differences on jurors' note taking during trials and recall of trial evidence, and the association between the type of evidence recalled and verdicts.
    Lorek J; Centifanti LCM; Lyons M; Thorley C
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(2):e0212491. PubMed ID: 30779768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Preface to "when does sample matter in juror decision-making research? Differences between college student and representative samples of jurors".
    Lieberman JD; Krauss DA; Wiener RL
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):325-7. PubMed ID: 21766325
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions.
    Corwin EP; Cramer RJ; Griffin DA; Brodsky SL
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 22396340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Impact of Evidence Type and Judicial Warning on Juror Perceptions of Global and Specific Witness Evidence.
    Wheatcroft JM; Keogan H
    J Psychol; 2017 Apr; 151(3):247-267. PubMed ID: 27982750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Waiving goodbye to youth: Jurors perceive transferred juveniles differently from adults but render similar verdicts.
    Katzman J; Fessinger MB; Bornstein BH; McWilliams K
    Behav Sci Law; 2022 Nov; 40(6):835-858. PubMed ID: 36226574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Jurors' locus of control and defendants' attractiveness in death penalty sentencing.
    Beckham CM; Spray BJ; Pietz CA
    J Soc Psychol; 2007 Jun; 147(3):285-98. PubMed ID: 17703790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Talking about a black man: the influence of defendant and character witness race on jurors' use of character evidence.
    Maeder EM; Hunt JS
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(4):608-20. PubMed ID: 21796674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.