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 *

254 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21766326)

  • 1. The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: it depends on the sample.
    McCabe JG; Krauss DA
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):331-57. PubMed ID: 21766326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony.
    Guy LS; Edens JF
    Behav Sci Law; 2003; 21(2):215-37. PubMed ID: 12645046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The biasing effect of the "sexually violent predator" label on legal decisions.
    Scurich N; Gongola J; Krauss DA
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2016; 47():109-14. PubMed ID: 27206709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony.
    Lieberman JD; Krauss DA; Kyger M; Lehoux M
    Behav Sci Law; 2007; 25(4):507-26. PubMed ID: 17620274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity.
    Keller SR; Wiener RL
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):376-94. PubMed ID: 21766327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making.
    Crocker CB; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2010 Jun; 34(3):212-26. PubMed ID: 19644740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: a comparison of students and jurors.
    Reichert J; Miller MK; Bornstein BH; Shelton HD
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):395-418. PubMed ID: 21308752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense.
    Schweitzer NJ; Saks MJ
    Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(4):592-607. PubMed ID: 21744379
    [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. Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: the Effect of Truncated Testimony on Juror Decision-making.
    Anderson L; Gross J; Sonne T; Zajac R; Hayne H
    Behav Sci Law; 2016 Jan; 34(1):200-17. PubMed ID: 26879737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.